ORDER : 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 the detention order passed in C.M.P.No.36/Goonda/C2/2016 dated 13.10.2016 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Dinesh, aged 25 years, S/o.Nehruji, residing at Adidravidar Street, Chinnagoundapuram, Ramalingapuram Post, Karippatty Police Station Limits, Valadappady Taluk, Salem and quash the same. 2. The Inspector of Police, Karippatty Police Station as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases : i. Karippatty Police Station Crime No.282/2015 registered under Sections 294[b], 323 and 506[ii] of Indian Penal Code. ii. Karippatty Police Station Crime No.241/2016 registered under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 09.08.2016, one Ponnusamy, S/o.Meyyan, Ram Nagar, Ayothiyapattanam, as de facto complainant has given a complaint in Karippatty Police Station, wherein, it is stated that in the place of occurrence, the detenu had shown deadly weapon and snatched a sum of Rs.300/- from the de facto complainant and consequently, a case has been registered in Crime No.274/2016 under Section 392 r/w 397 of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu. 4. The Detaining Authority after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the wife of the detenu has filed the present petition as petitioner. 5. In the counter filed on the side of the respondents, it is averred to the effect that most of the averments made in the petition are false. The Sponsoring Authority has supplied all the materials to the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority after considering all the materials, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and rightly branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and the same does not call for any interference and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. The Detaining Authority after considering all the materials, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and rightly branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and the same does not call for any interference and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that on the side of the petitioner two representations have been submitted to the concerned authorities. But, the same have not been disposed of without delay and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representations submitted on the side of the petitioner are duly disposed of without delay and therefore, the contention urged on the side of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 8. On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted, wherein, it has been clearly stated that in respect of both the representations, in between column Nos.7 and 9, 15 clear working days are available. Likewise, in between column Nos.12 and 13, 7 clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents and that would itself 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 petition is allowed. The Detention Order dated 13.10.2016 passed in C.M.P.No.36/Goonda/C2/2016 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Dinesh, aged 25 years, S/o.Nehruji, is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.