Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother 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.1914/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 13.12.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 G-3 Kilpauk Police Station Crime No.566/2013 397 IPC 2 P-1 Pulianthope Police Station Crime No. 2353/2013 341, 294(b), 385,506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 09.12.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-1 Pulianthope Police Station in Crime No.2378/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 392, 336, 427 and 506(ii) r/w 397 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 13.12.2013; the petitioner made a representation to the detaining authority on 19.02.2014 and it was received by the competent authority on 24.02.2014; remarks were called on 24.02.2014 and only on 05.03.2014 remarks were received and file was submitted on 05.03.2014; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 05.03.2014; on 09.03.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 13.03.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than five days i.e. between 24.02.2014, the date on which remarks were called for and 05.03.2014, 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 five days i.e. between 24.02.2014, the date on which remarks were called for and 05.03.2014, 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.1914/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 13.12.2013is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Stephenin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.