JUDGMENT (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 3rd respondent in his office ref.C3.D.O.No.117/2022 dated 17.11.2022 against the petitioner''s son Thiru.Rajesh, s/o.Venkatesan aged about 41 years at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Hon''ble Court and set him at liberty.) M. Sundar, J. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by father of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 17.11.2022 bearing reference C3.D.O.No.117/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, sixth respondent is the sponsoring authority and third respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by third respondent. 2. Impugned detention order has been made by the Detaining Authority on the premise that the detenu is a ''Black Marketeer'' vide ''Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act No.7 of 1980)'' [hereinafter ''Black Marketing and EC Act'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 3. There is one adverse case and one ground case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.241 of 2022 on the file of Civil Supplies CID, Vellore for alleged offences under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 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.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel for all respondents are before us. 5. Though several grounds have been urged in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing exhorted one point in his campaign against the impugned detention order and that one point turns on delay in considering a representation sent qua impugned detention order. 6. 5. Though several grounds have been urged in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing exhorted one point in his campaign against the impugned detention order and that one point turns on delay in considering a representation sent qua impugned detention order. 6. Responding to the aforementioned submission, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to the contrary and placed before us a list of dates and the details of the same are as follows: 'Representation dated 14.12.2022 Representation received date 20.12.2022 Remarks called on 22.12.2022 Reminder date ................ Remarks received on 27.01.2023 File submitted on 31.01.2023 Under Secretary dealt with on 01.02.2023 Deputy Secretary dealt with on 01.02.2023 Principal Secretary dealt with on 01.02.2023 Secretary Law dealt with on 03.02.2023 Minister for Food and Civil supplies dealt with on 06.02.2023 Rejection letter prepared on 07.02.2023 Rejection letter sent to the detenu on (through e-mail) 07.02.2023 Government Holidays Falls on: 17.12.2022, 18.12.2022, 24.12.2022, 25.12.2022, 31.12.2022, 01.01.2023, 07.01.2023, 08.01.2023, 14.01.2023, 15.01.2023, 16.01.2023, 17.01.2023, 21.01.2023, 22.01.2023, 26.01.2023, 28.01.2023, 29.01.2023, 04.02.2023 and 05.02.2023'' 7. We find that even if the intervening 17 public/Government holidays 24.12.2022, 25.12.2022, 31.12.2022, 01.01.2023, 07.01.2023, 08.01.2023, 14.01.2023, 15.01.2023, 16.01.2023, 17.01.2023, 21.01.2023, 22.01.2023, 26.01.2023, 28.01.2023, 29.01.2023, 04.02.2023 and 05.02.2023 are excluded, there is a delay of 25 days in considering the representation. We make it clear that the delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively. It has to be decided qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances and the trajectory the representation has taken, in other words, it has to be decided on case to case basis. In the case on hand, we adopt such an approach and we find that 25 days delay vitiates the impugned detention order. We also hasten to make it clear that there can be no straight jacket formula in terms of number of days as regards this point is concerned and therefore, this order will not serve as precedent in all and every case. 8. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 17.11.2022 bearing reference C3.D.O.No.117/2022made by the third respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Rajesh, aged 41 years, son of Thiru.Venkatesan, 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.