JUDGMENT : M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling upon the production of the records relating to the detention order dated 27.10.2018 made in detention order Memo No. BCDFGISSSV/988/2018 passed by the 2nd respondent herein quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son Kosu @ Ramachandran S/o Lakshmi Kanthan, aged about 23 years branded as Goondas and now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who vide impugned Order of Detention dated 27.10.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent by invoking Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in branding the detenu as ''Goonda'' came forward to file this Habeas Corpus petition. 2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would disclose among other things that the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- S. No Police Station and Crime No. Section of Law Date 1. J-11 Kannagi Nagar P.S. Cr. No. 1505/2016 147, 148, 341, 324, 302(2 counts) r/w 149 IPC 29.10.2016 2. J-11 Kannagi Nagar P.S. Cr. No. 1084/2017 341, 294(b), 336, 392 r/w 397, 506(ii) IPC 14.06.2017 3. It is further averred that in the ground of detention that the defacto complainant namely Vinoth Kumar, resident of Thuraipakkam, Chennai-9. At about 15.30 hours, on 06.06.2018 was proceeding by walk at SCR Avenue, Ikkiyampet, and the accused namely Thiru. Senkottaiyan, Thiru. Thatcha, the detenu, Thiru. Veera and Thiru. Vigna wrongfully restrained the complainant and abused him by using filthy language and demanded a money and when the defacto complainant prayed that he has no money, one of the accused took the knife and kept it over the neck and at the same time, two other accused caught hold of his hands, snatched a sum of Rs. 1,450/- from his pocket and when the defacto complainant attempted to wriggle out, the accused threatened him and slapped him over his cheeks and when he raised an alarm, the public gathered and taking advantage of the panic situation, he fled away from the scene of occurrence. The Inspector of Police, Kannagi Nagar Police Station registered a case in Cr. No. 353/2018 under Section 341, 294(b), 352, 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC and took up for investigation. The Inspector of Police, Kannagi Nagar Police Station registered a case in Cr. No. 353/2018 under Section 341, 294(b), 352, 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC and took up for investigation. 4. The detenu was arrested on 21.09.2018 and he voluntarily came forward to give a confession statement and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses and based on the admissible portion of the confession statement, some incriminating articles were seized and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur, Chennai on 21.09.2018 and he was ordered to be remanded to judicial custody till 04.10.2018 and it was further extended till 30.10.2018. 5. The Detaining Authority namely the 2nd respondent on the basis of materials, formed a subjective satisfaction that the detenu, who has committed the crime, have already came to adverse notice in two cases and his acts are prejudice to the maintenance of public order and accordingly, clamped the impugned order of detention and challenging the legality of the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenu would submit that for revoking the order of detention, passed against the detenu, a representation dated 19.11.2018 was submitted and the Deputy Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department had dealt with the same on 04.12.2018 and the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise had dealt with the same on 20.12.2018 and excluding 4 days holidays, still there was a delay of 11 days in dealing with the said representation and in the absence of proper explanation, the said delay is fatal to the impugned orders of detention and therefore, prays for appropriate orders. 7. Per contra, Mr. C. Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, by drawing attention of this Court to the worksheet, would submit that there were very many intermittent public holidays and therefore, it cannot be said that there was delay in consideration and disposing of the detenu's representation and would further add that the 2nd respondent/Detaining Authority, after due and proper application of mind, has rightly clamped the order of detention and prays for dismissal of this petition. 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed. 9. 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed. 9. A perusal of the worksheet as to the disposal of the representation would clearly reveal that the Deputy Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise (X) Department had dealt with the same on 04.12.2018 and the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise, had dealt with the same on 20.12.2018 and even excluding the Government holidays of 4 days, still there was a delay of 11 days in dealing with the said representations and no plausible or tenable explanation has been offered on behalf of the respondents as to the said delay. In the considered opinion of this Court, the delay in dealing with the representations violates the valuable right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and hence on the sole ground, the impugned order warrants interference. 10. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Memo No. BCDFGISSSV/988/2018 dated 27.10.2018 is set aside and the detenu namely Kosu @ Ramachandran S/o Lakshmi Kanthan, aged about 23 years is set at liberty forthwith unless his detention/custody is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.