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 M.H.S.Confdl No.20/2014, dated 21.04.2014 against the detenu by name Barathan, Son of Muthupandi Thevar, by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein and quash the same and thereby set the detenu at liberty forthwith. 2. The Inspector of Police, Suthamalli Police Station as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases: (i) Crime No.147 of 2013, Suthamalli Police Station registered under Section 379 (Sand Theft) of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) Crime No.854 of 2013, Pettai Police Station, Tirunelveli City, registered under Sections 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4(1)(ii)(A) and read with Section 21(1)(v) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1959 @ 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) Crime No.341 of 2013, Suthamalli Police Station registered under Section 379 (Sand Theft) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 26.03.2014, a complaint has been registered against the detenu and others in Crime No.76 of 2014, Suthamalli Police Station under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code 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 and other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately branded him as 'Goonda' 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 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. 5. On the side of the respondents a 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 the very same petitioner has already filed H.C.P(MD)No.492 of 2014 before this Court and this Court has not considered the similar case particulars relied upon by the detaining authority, which is not similar in fact and further after disposal of H.C.P(MD)No.492 of 2014, a representation has been given and the same has not been considered without delay and under the said circumstances, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that in the booklet, similar case particulars are available and the same has been relied upon by the detaining authority and even in the order passed in H.C.P(MD)No.492 of 2014, the same has been considered and ultimately H.C.P(MD)No.492 of 2014 has been dismissed and therefore the very same grounds cannot be urged now and altogether the present Habeas Corpus Petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. From the arguments putforth on the side of the petitioner, the following points can easily be deduced: (i) The detaining authority has not properly considered the alleged similar case particulars. (ii) The representation submitted on the side of the detenu has not been disposed of without delay. 9. With regard to first point urged on the side of the petitioner, it would be more useful to look into the order passed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.8949 of 2012 by this Court and this Court has perused the same and found that the third accused in Crime No.226 of 2012, Suthamalli Police Station has attacked the deceased and accused 1 and 2/petitioners therein have given their aidance. Under the said circumstances, this Court has granted bail to them. 10. It is an admitted fact that against the detenu, ground case has been registered in Crime No.76 of 2014 under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the said circumstances, this Court has granted bail to them. 10. It is an admitted fact that against the detenu, ground case has been registered in Crime No.76 of 2014 under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the similar case, the specific overtacts of the petitioners 1 and 2/ accused 1 and 2 have been considered by this Court and ultimately granted bail, whereas in Crime No.76 of 2014, the specific overtacts alleged to have been committed by the detenu are not at all similar and further on the basis of stage of investigation bail has been granted in the alleged similar case. Under the said circumstances, the detaining authority without considering the ground under which bail has been granted in the alleged similar case, has erroneously given a finding to the effect that in similar case, concerned accused have been granted bail and therefore there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in Crime No.76 of 2014, Suthamalli Police Station. On the basis of the rival submissions made on either side, this Court has scanned the entire order passed in H.C.P(MD)No.492 of 2014, wherein no mention has been made with regard to order passed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.8949 of 2012. Under the said circumstances, the first and foremost ground urged on the side of the petitioner has not been urged in H.C.P(MD)No.492 of 2014. 11. With regard to second ground, on the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that in between Column Nos.7 to 9, six clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, five clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to inordinate delay in disposing of the representation submitted on the side of the detenu and that itself would affect his rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 12. It has already been pointed out that the detaining authority has erroneously relied upon similar case particulars and the same has not at all been considered in H.C.P(MD)No.492 of 2014 and further the representation submitted on the side of the detenu has not been disposed of without delay. Therefore viewing from any angle, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 13. Therefore viewing from any angle, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 13. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed in M.H.S.Confdl No.20/2014, dated 21.04.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Barathan, Son of Muthupandi Thevar at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.