JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 30.07.2022 in Memo No.226/BCDFGISSSV/2022 against the petitioner''s son Raguman, male, aged 24 years, S/o.Mohamed Haniffa, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.) M. Sundar, J. 1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by mother of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 30.07.2022 bearing reference Memo No.226/BCDFGISSSV/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent. 2. Impugned detention order has been made under ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982. 3. There are four adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.222 of 2022 on the file of E-3 Teynampet Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts. 4. Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us. 5. Notwithstanding very many averments in support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner submits that there are two representations, one dated 10.09.2022, another dated 13.09.2022 and there is a delay in considering the representations. 6. 4. Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us. 5. Notwithstanding very many averments in support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner submits that there are two representations, one dated 10.09.2022, another dated 13.09.2022 and there is a delay in considering the representations. 6. Responding to this, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor placed before us list of dates with regard to second of the aforementioned representations (representation dated 13.09.2022) and the details are as follows: ' Representation dated 13.09.2022 Representation received on dated 14.09.2022 File submitted on dated 17.09.2022 Under Secretary dealt with on ...... Deputy Secretary dealt with on 17.09.2022 Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with on 21.09.2022 Rejection letter prepared on 21.09.2022 Rejection letter sent to the detenu 21.09.2022' 7. If the intervening two Government/public holidays (17.09.2022 and 18.09.2022) are excluded, we still find that there is delay of four days in considering the representation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the matter, we find that this delay has caused infraction of the detenu''s rights qua the preventive detention order. 8. We make it clear that delay in considering the representation point has to be decided on a case to case basis. We have decided this matter on the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and therefore number of days will not be the sole parameter in deciding delay in considering the representation point qua challenge to preventive detention orders. 9. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 30.07.2022 bearing reference Memo No.226/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Raguman, male, aged 24 years, son of Thiru.Mohamed Haniffa is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.