JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the detention order made in Memo No.392/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 17.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Hon`ble Court and set the detenue Suman Akter S/o.Abdulkalam aged about 21 years now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set at liberty forthwith.) S. Vaidyanathan, J. & A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J. 1. The petitioner is the friend of the detenu Suman Akter S/o. Abdulkalam aged about 21 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.392/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 17.12.2021, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition, stating that it is a case where the detenue was arrested for having found in possession of 22 kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 17.12.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 12.01.2022. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 14.02.2022. The remarks were duly received on 03.03.2022. 5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 17.12.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 12.01.2022. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 14.02.2022. The remarks were duly received on 03.03.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 20.04.2022. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 16 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 4 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 12 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 03.03.2022 and there was a delay of 47 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which, 14 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 45 days in considering the representation. 7. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( 2011 (5) SCC 244 ), the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the procedural safeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the Courts of law and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities undertaken by the detenu. 8. In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government (2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145), a Division Bench of this Court has 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. 9. In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321 , the Honourable 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. 10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 12 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 33 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.392/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 17.12.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.392/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 17.12.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Suman Akter S/o. Abdulkalam aged about 21 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. 12. It is made clear that in view of the fact that the quantity involved is a commercial one, the quashing of detention order will not in any way inure to the benefit of the detenue and it cannot be taken as a ground for grant of bail before the Trial Court, as it is for the Trial Court to decide the bail application strictly in terms of Section 37 of NDPS Act.