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 entire records connected with the order of the 2nd respondent herein in D.O.No.C2/51/2022 dated 15.09.2022 passed against the petitioner''s husband the detenu namely Mani, son of Lakshmanan, aged about 44 years as a "GOONDA" who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set aside the same and consequently, directing the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Hon''ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) M.SUNDAR, J., 1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of the detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 15.09.2022 bearing reference D.O.No.C2/51/2022'' [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 the 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 is no adverse case. This solitary case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.237 of 2022 on the file of Chinnasalem Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 332, 353, 436, 506(ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. 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.A. Murugavel, 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. 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.A. Murugavel, 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. 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 23.11.2022 Representation received dated 28.11.2022 File submitted on dated 16.12.2022 Undersecretary dealt with on 16.12.2022 Deputy secretary dealt with on 16.12.2022 Minister dealth with and file received on 19.12.2022 Rejected letter prepared on 19.12.2022 Rejected letter sent to the detenu on 20.12.2022 Govt Holiday Falls on: 03.12.2022, 04.12.2022, 10.12.2022, 11.12.2022, 17.12.2022 & 18.12.2022 S.NO Representation Column 6-7 Column 9-10 1 No of days 17 2 2 No of holidays 4 2 Totaldelay days 13 - Total 13 days Dealy 7. We find that even if the intervening 6 public/Government holidays 03.12.2022, 04.12.2022, 10.12.2022, 11.12.2022, 17.12.2022 and 18.12.2022 are excluded, there is a delay of 13 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 13 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. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ. 9. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. 8. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ. 9. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 15.09.2022 bearing reference D.O.No.C2/51/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Mani, aged 44 years, son of Thiru. Lakshmanan, 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.