Judgment A. Selvam, J. 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 Detention Order No.24/2014 dated 21.09.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Raja @ Jesuraj, Son of Royappan and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith. 2. The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town North 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.972 of 2010, Dindigul Town West Police Station registered under Sections 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) Crime No.479 of 2011, Dindigul Town West Police Station registered under Sections 387 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) Crime No.345 of 2014, Dindigul Town North Police Station registered under Sections 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 02.07.2014, one Archunan has given a complaint against the detenu in Dindigul Town North Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.352 of 2014 under Sections 302 and 506(ii) 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 perusing the averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and thereby 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 detenu himself as petitioner. 5. On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended inter alia 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 representations submitted on the side of the detenu have been duly disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question is not liable to be quashed. 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, three clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, five clear working days are available and with regard to second representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, six clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, six clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to huge delay in disposing of representations submitted by 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 Detention Order No.24/2014, dated 21.09.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Raja @ Jesuraj, Son of Royappan at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.