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 2ndrespondent passed in Memo No.1831/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 07.12.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-4 Maduravoyal Police Station Crime No.344/2011 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 302 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 149 IPC 2. K -10 Koyambedu Police Station Crime No.1493/2013 341, 294(b), 324, 397 and 506(ii) IPC 3. T-4 Maduravoyal Police Station Crime No.1622/2013 341, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 05.12.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-10 Koyambedu Police Station in Crime No.1633/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 353, 307, 427 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 07.12.2013; the petitioner made a representation to the detaining authority on 21.12.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 24.12.2013; remarks were called on 24.12.2013 and only on 09.01.2014 remarks were received and file was submitted on 13.01.2014; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 13.01.2014; on 20.01.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 27.01.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than ten days i.e. between 24.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 09.01.2014, the date on which remarks were received, excluding holidays. The said delay is not explained by the competent authority. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than ten days i.e. between 24.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 09.01.2014, the date on which remarks were received, 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 Memo No.1831/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 07.12.2013is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Venkatramanin 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.