ORDER : M. Sundar, J. Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been filed by the spouse of detenu in this Court on 18.10.2022 assailing a 'detention order dated 06.10.2022 bearing reference PBMMSECA No.8/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity] made by the 'third respondent i.e., jurisdictional District Collector' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, sixth respondent i.e., jurisdictional Inspector of Police is the Sponsoring Authority. 2. Ms. G. Gayathri, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for all the six respondents are before us. 3. The impugned detention order has been made by the Detaining Authority inter alia 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]. 4. In petitioner's campaign against impugned detention order, one point finds favour with us and that point is delay in considering the representation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sent a representation but there is delay in considering the same. In response to this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the representation of the detenu was received on 19.10.2022 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed before us a chronicle which reads as follows : 6. A careful perusal of the above makes it clear that there is 30 days delay which remains unexplained. Delay is long enough and it also remains unexplained. Delay in considering the representation is a facet of infraction of constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22(5) of Constitution of India. In the case on hand, the delay is clearly an infraction of the facet of Article 22(5) of Constitution of India and therefore, the impugned detention order cannot but be dislodged on this ground. 7. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ. 8. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 06.10.2022 bearing reference PBMMSECA No.8/2022 made by the third respondent is set aside and the detenu Mr. Santhosh Kumar, son of Mr. 7. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ. 8. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 06.10.2022 bearing reference PBMMSECA No.8/2022 made by the third respondent is set aside and the detenu Mr. Santhosh Kumar, son of Mr. Chandiran is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. 9. Captioned HCP ordered on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.