Judgment 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No.22/2014 (SAND OFFENDER), dated 12.11.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Kaliraj, Son of Ammasi and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith. 2. The Inspector of Police, Vempakkottai Circle as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case: “Crime No. 410 of 2014, Sattur Town Police Station registered under Section 21(i) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957”. 3. Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 04.11.2014, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Sattur Town Police Station has found the detenu with sand and tried to catch him. But the detenu made attempt to murder him and consequently a case has been registered in Crime No.622 of 2014 under Sections 307, 353 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 21(1) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu. 4. The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein after considering the averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual sand offender and ultimately branded him under the said caption by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu as petitioner. 5. On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the detenu two representations have been submitted and the same are not disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 7. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the detenu two representations have been submitted and the same are not disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the all the representations submitted on the side of the detenu are duly disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question does not call for any interference. 8. On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that with regard to first representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, six clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.9 and 10, four clear working days are available and with regard to second representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, five clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, four clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such huge delay in disposing of the representations submitted on the side of the detenu and that itself would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 9. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No.22/2014 (SAND OFFENDER), dated 12.11.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Kaliraj, Son of Ammasi at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.