Judgment : V. Dhanapalan,J.) 1. The daughter-in-law of the detenue is before this Court challenging the proceedings in D.O.No.78/2013-C2, dated 05.09.2013 on the file of the 2nd respondent, seeking to quash the same and for a direction to the respondents to set her at liberty from detention. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T.V.Malai Town Police Station Crime No.1254/2012 4(1)(i) TNP Act 2. T.V.Malai Town Police Station Crime No.160/2013 4(1)(aa) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) TNP Act @ 4(1)(aa) TNP Act 3. T.V.Malai Town Police Station Crime No.190/2013 4(1)(aa) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) TNP Act @ 4(1)(aa) TNP Act 4. T.V.Malai Town Police Station Crime No.400/2013 4(1)(i) TNP Act The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 23.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station in Crime No.542/2013 for offences under Section 4(1)(i) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) of TNP Act. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed 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.M.Maharaja, 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 05.09.2013; the detenue made a representation to the detaining authority on 10.09.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 23.09.2013; remarks were called on 27.09.2013 and only on 03.10.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 08.09.2013; the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 09.10.2013; on 12.10.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 17.10.2013. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of 3 days between 27.09.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 03.10.2013, the date on which remarks were received, excluding two holidays (Saturday & Sunday) i.e. on 28.09.2013 and 29.09.2013. 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 3 days between 27.09.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 03.10.2013, the date on which remarks were received, excluding two holidays (Saturday & Sunday) i.e. on 28.09.2013 and 29.09.2013. 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 D.O.No.78/2013-C2 dated 05.09.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue, namely Padma in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case.