JUDGMENT : B. Pugalendhi, J. (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in P.D.No.02 of 2021 dated 02.02.2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Thangadurai son of Ramasamy aged about 37 years, now detained as Goonda in Trichy Central Prison before this Court and set him liberty forthwith.) 1. The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu Thangadurai, S/O, Ramasamy, aged about 37 years, who has been branded as “Goonda” by the second respondent in Detention Order P.D.No.02 of 2021, dated 02.02.2021, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. A perusal of the grounds of detention dated 02.02.2021, passed by the second respondent herein would disclose that the detenu Thangadurai came to the adverse notice in the following cases. Sl. No. Name of the Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Gandarvakkottai Police Station Crime No.108 of 2016 294(b), 341 and 323 IPC 2. Gandarvakkottai Police Station Crime No.150 of 2017 294(b), 323, 506(i), IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(Va) of Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 altered into 294(b), 352, 506(i) IPC, r/w Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (Va) of Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 3. Gandarvakkottai Police Station Crime No.28 of 2020 294(b) and 323 IPC, r/w Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (Va) of Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 altered Into 294(b) and 352 IPC, r/w Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (Va) of Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 4. 4. Gandarvakkottai Police Station Crime No.628 of 2020 294(b), 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC 3/16 5. Adanakkottai Police Station Crime No.10 of 2021 Sections 341 and 321 IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), 3(2)(Va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 3. 4. Gandarvakkottai Police Station Crime No.628 of 2020 294(b), 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC 3/16 5. Adanakkottai Police Station Crime No.10 of 2021 Sections 341 and 321 IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), 3(2)(Va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 3. The grounds on which the detenu was detained are that based on the intimation received from the Government Medical College Hospital, Pudukottai, on 10.01.2021 around 03.00 hours, one Kanagaraj, Sub Inspector of Police, Adanakkottai Police station rushed to the said hospital and recorded the statement from the complainant, who was admitted as inpatient. The complainant has stated that he is a resident of Valavampatti, Gandarvakkottai Taluk, Pudukottai District. When he along with his uncle were travelling in a two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 55 AA 5649 near one Vinayaga cashew factory on Pudukkottai to Thanjavur National Highways, the detenu and three others waylaid them, stabbed them with sickle and attacked them with wooden log and iron rod with an intention to kill them. When the complainant blocked the attack from the them, he sustained severe cut injury on his right hand, right thumb and on his head and they have attacked his uncle also on the instigation of i) Bombay Saravanan, S/o.Panneer Selvam, ii) Siva, son of Panneerselvam, iii) Arunprasath, S/o. Thambidurai, iv) Jagadeesan, son of Arjunan of Aravampatti village and after attacking the complainant and his uncle, they have fled from the place of occurrence and based on the statement a case in crime No.10 of 2021 has been registered on the file of the Adanakkottai Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 324 IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(Va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. Subsequently, the detenu was arrested on 10.01.2021 at 15.00 hours near Gandarvakkottai Taluk Office, produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gandarvakkottai on 10.01.2021 and remanded to judicial custody till 23.01.2021 and subsequently, the remand was extended till 05.02.2021. Being satisfied that the acts of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of piece and public order, the second respondent has branded the petitioner as Goonda as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and passed the detention order. Challenging, the order of detention, this Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu. 4. Dr. Challenging, the order of detention, this Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu. 4. Dr. R. Alagumani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the subjective satisfaction derived by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention is that, 'further recourse to the normal criminal law will not have the desired effect effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public peace and public order', however, there is no cogent material available for arriving at such subjective satisfaction. He further submitted that the detenu was remanded in the ground case on 10.01.2021 and the detention order was passed on 02.02.2021 and there is a delay of 22 days in passing the detention order and the reason for such delay has not been explained by the detaining authority. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that for revoking the order of detention, the detenu submitted representation on 09.02.2021 and the Deputy Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, has dealt with the same on 19.03.2021 and the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise, has dealt with the same only on 12.04.2021 and there is a delay of 57 days and even by excluding 22 intervening holidays, still there was a delay of 35 days in dealing with and considering the said representation and when no proper explanation has been given, the said delay is fatal for the reason that the valuable right of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, has been affected and therefore, prays for quashment of the impugned orders of detention. 6. Per contra, Mr. S. Ravi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State would submit that the Detaining Authority, after due and proper application of mind has rightly clamped the order of detention and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is very minimal and therefore, it is not fatal to the impugned order of detention. 6. Per contra, Mr. S. Ravi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State would submit that the Detaining Authority, after due and proper application of mind has rightly clamped the order of detention and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is very minimal and therefore, it is not fatal to the impugned order of detention. Further, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the detenu has come to the adverse notice in the following cases, viz., (i) Crime No.108 of 2016 on the file of the Gandarvakkottai Police Station and he was convicted with a fine of Rs.4500/- for the offence under Sections 294(b), 341 and 323 IPC, (ii)Crime No.150 of 2017, on the file of the Gandarvakkottai Police Station for the offence under Sections 294(b), 352, 506(i) IPC, r/w Section 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (Va) of Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and he has obtained bail on 10.08.2017 and trail is pending and (iii) Crime No.28 of 2018 on the file of the Gandarvakottail Police Station, for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 352 IPC, r/w Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (Va) of Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and trial is pending and in Crime No.628 of 2020 on the file of the Gandarvakottail Police Station, for the offence under Sections 294(b), 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and he has obtained anticipatory bail and the case is under investigation and the detaining authority considering that if the accused is let out freely, there is a possibility of danger to the safety of general public and their belongings and therefore, passed detention order. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the materials placed on record. 8. A perusal of the proforma would disclose that the detenu made a representation on 09.02.2021, the Deputy Secretary to Home, Prohibition and Excise Department dealt with the representation on 19.03.2021 and the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise, has dealt with the same only on 12.04.2021 and there is a delay of 57 days and even by excluding 22 intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 37 days in dealing with and considering the said representation. 9. 9. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, casts legal obligation on the Government to consider the detenu's representation as early as possible. There should be no slackness, indifference and callous attitude in consideration of the representations of the persons who are detained. Any unexplained delay would be breach of constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention of the detenu as illegal. Every day delay in dealing with the representation has to be explained and the explanation offered must be reasonably indicating that there was no slackness or indifference. 10. In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government, reported in 2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145, a Division Bench of this Court held that the unexplained delay of three days in disposal of the representation made on behalf of the detenu would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention. 11. In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the very detention illegal. 12. In this case there is a delay of 57 days and even by excluding 22 intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 37 days in dealing with and considering the said representation. In the absence of any plausible or tenable explanation, such a delay is fatal to the order of detention. 13. Further, the learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the detenu has come to the adverse notice in several cases and therefore, it is necessary to detain the detenue under the preventive law. He further submitted that the detenu, who has been granted bail on 10.08.2017 in Crime No.150 of 2017 on the file of the Gandarvakottai Police Station has repeatedly involved in crimes and subsequent cases have been registered against him in (i) Crime No.28 of 2018 on the file of the Gandarvakottai Police Station, (ii) Crime No. 628 of 2020 on the file of the Gandarvakottai Police Station and (iii) Crime No.10 of 2021 on the file of the Adanankottai Police Station. 14. Admittedly, the detenu was granted bail in the first case on the condition that he should maintain good conduct. 14. Admittedly, the detenu was granted bail in the first case on the condition that he should maintain good conduct. The involvement of the detenu in the subsequent cases reveal that he has misused the personal liberty granted to him in the previous case, by indulging in subsequent offences. If there is any such misuse of the personal liberty granted to the accused, it would be a ground for cancellation of bail. In this regard it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghubir Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 , wherein it has been held as follows: “bail can be cancelled where (i)accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc.” The above decision has been subsequently reiterated in several other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15. In view of the above settled proposition of law, if the accused after coming out of on bail, by misusing the liberty granted to him, indulges in the commission of the offence continuously, it is for the investigation agency to bring the same to the notice of the Court concerned and take steps for cancellation of bail before the Court concerned along with relevant materials against the accused, instead of invoking detention law. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed by setting aside the Order of Detention passed by the second respondent herein, namely, The District Magistrate and District Collector, Pudukottai in P.D.No.02 of 2021, dated 02.02.2021, the detenu, namely, Thangadurai son of Ramasamy aged about 37 years, who is now detained at Central Prison, Trichy is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence [or] custody [or] detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.