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 C.M.P.No.19/2014, dated 04.08.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Mathialagan @ Mathi, Son of Thavasithevarand quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith. 2. The Inspector of Police, Madurai NIB CID Unit 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.7 of 2012, Madurai NIB CID Unit registered under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act. 3. Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 28.04.2014, the detenu is found in possession of 22 Kgs of ganja and consequently a case has been registered in Crime No.75 of 2014 under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 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 'Drug Offender' 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 wife 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 three representations have been submitted, but the same have not been 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 three representations have been submitted, but the same have not been 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 all the representations submitted on the side of the detenu have been 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, ten clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, one clear working day is available and with regard to second representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, four clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, four clear working days are available and with regard to third representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, four 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 C.M.P.No.19/2014, dated 04.08.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Mathiyalagan @ Mathi, Son of Thavasithevar at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.