ORDER : A. Selvam, J. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to detention order, passed in No.1183/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 28.11.2016, by the detaining authority against the detenu, by name Ragunathan, S/o.Kumar @ Nandu Kumar, aged 35 years, residing at No.82, 'B' Block, Kasipuram, 3rd Street, Kasimedu, Chennai-13 and quash the same. 2. The Inspector of Police, N-2, Kasimedu 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 case. N-2 Kasimedu Police Station, Cr.No.576/2016 registered under Sections 342, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 06.09.2016, one Sakthivel, aged 24 years, son of Vadivel, residing at No.10, 1st Street, Powedr Kuppam, Kasimedu, Chennai-13, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint against the detenu and others, wherein it is stated to the effect that in the place of occurrence, the present detenu and others have indiscriminately attacked the defacto complainant Logeswaran and one Vignesh by using deadly weapons and due to their overt acts, the said Vignesh has passed away. Under such circumstances, a case has been registered in Crime No.998 of 2016, under Sections 341, 3244, 307, 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, 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 a 'Goonda' by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the detenu himself has filed by the mother of the detenu, as petitioner. 5. Inspite of repeated adjournments, on the side of the respondents counter has not been filed. Under such circumstances, this petition is disposed of on merits on the basis of available records. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that on the side of the detenu, a representation has been given and the same has 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 to the effect that on the side of the detenu, a representation has been given and the same has not been disposed of without delay and therefore, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents has contended to the effect that the representation submitted by the detenu has already been disposed of without delay and therefore, the detention order in question need not be quashed. 8. On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted, wherein it is clearly stated that in between Column Nos.7 to 9, eleven clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, three clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay and the same 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. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order dated 28.11.2016 passed in No.1183/BCDFGISSSV/2016 by the detaining authority against the detenu, by name Ragunathan, S/o Kumar @ Nandu Kumar, aged 35 years, residing at No.82, 'B' Block, Kasipuram, 3rd Street, Kasimedu, Chennai-13, is quashed and the respondents are directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with some other case.