Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in No. 1512 of 2013, dated 04.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Crime No. 566 of 2011 147, 148, 342, 302 IPC 2. P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station Crime No. 1412 of 2013 341, 392, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 26.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station in Crime No. 1791 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397, 307 and 506 (ii) IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the question of delay in consideration of the petitioner's representation, which has not been properly explained by the respondents. Therefore, it would vitiate the rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 4. We have heard Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records. 5. On a perusal of the list informing the course of consideration of the petitioner's representation, it is seen that the Detention Order was passed on 04.11.2013; the petitioner made a representation to the detaining authority on 16.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 22.11.2013; remarks were called on 22.11.2013 and only on 26.11.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 27.11.2013; the Under Secretary as well as the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 27.11.2013; on 29.11.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 05.12.2013. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of nearly seven days in two spells i.e. between 22.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 26.11.2013, the date on which remarks were received and between 29.11.2013, the date on which the file was dealt with by the Minister and 05.12.2013, the date on which the rejection letter was prepared, excluding holidays. The said delay is not explained by the competent authority. Therefore, it is apparent that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in consideration of the petitioner's representation and the same contradicts the requirement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the consequence thereof is in infringement of the right of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in No. 1512 of 2013 dated 04.11.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Sureshin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.