Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 10.09.2013 made in No.951/BDFGISSV/2013, passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a ‘Goonda’ and detained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980). 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 10.09.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1. T-3 Korattur Police Station Cr. No.446/2011 294(b), 323, 506(ii) I.P.C. 2. V-7 Nolambur Police Station Cr. No.1408/2013 392 I.P.C. 3. V-7 Nolambur Police Station Cr. No.1665/2013 354 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 4. V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr. No.1708/2013 392 I.P.C. 3. In para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 03.09.2013 at 13.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, V-7 Nolambur Police Station, in Crime No.1681 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 336, 427, 307 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on the same day and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Chennai – 53 on 04.09.2013 and remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition. 4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focussed his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation dated 23.09.2013, which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, on this sole ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 6. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 6. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 10.09.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, a representation dated 23.09.2013 was made to the authorities concerned, which was received on 24.09.2013, for which the remarks called on 24.09.2013 were received on 08.10.2013. On submission of the file on 11.10.2013, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 20.10.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 28.10.2013. 7. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of 10 days, namely, between 23.09.2013 and 28.10.2013 (excluding the holidays on 28.09.2013, 29.09.2013, 05.10.2013 and 06.10.2013), which would definitely cause great prejudice to the detenu and amount to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and is vitiated. 8. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in Memo No.951/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 10.09.2013, is set aside. The detenu – Ebina @ Ebinezar, S/o.Melina, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.