ORDER : M.Sundar, J. Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] has been filed in this Court on 22.11.2022 by uncle of the detenu assailing a 'detention order dated 26.09.2022 bearing reference Cr.M.P.No.34/Black Marketer/2022-C1' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]. The impugned detention order has been made by the third respondent, i.e., 'jurisdictional District Collector and District Magistrate' [hereinafter 'detaining authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 2. Ms.R.Subadra Devi, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned detention order has been made branding the detenu as a 'Black Marketer' under the provisions of 'Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 [Central Act 7 of 1980]' {hereinafter 'Prevention of Black Marketing and EC Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity}. 3. It may not be necessary to dilate on facts or be detained by factual matrix as the petitioner's campaign against the impugned detention order turns on a neat and straight point, i.e., delay in considering the petitioner's representation against the impugned detention order. 4. Adverting to ground [x] in the HCP support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a representation dated 18.11.2022 has been sent to the first and second respondents and the same is pending. To be noted, this ground [x] in the HCP support affidavit reads as follows: 'x) The representation sent on behalf of detenu to the 1st and 2nd respondent on 18.11.2022 and the same is pending.' 5. The aforementioned ground [x] in the support affidavit has been met by the respondents in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows: '19.I humbly submitted that regarding para (x) of the grounds, the contention of the petitioner is not true. It is revealed clearly when the petitioner filing this Habeas Corpus Petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, sent a representation dated 18.11.2022 to the Additional Secretary to Government, Food, Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai and the same was considered by the 3rd respondent and the reply was sent to the 2nd respondent within stipulated time. There is no more consideration matter in his representation, it was rejected by the 2nd respondent and the reply was sent to the petitioner. There is no more consideration matter in his representation, it was rejected by the 2nd respondent and the reply was sent to the petitioner. Hence, the averment of the petitioner the representation is pending is need not to be taken into consideration.' A careful perusal of the above stated position of the respondents, more particularly, respondents 1 and 2 brings to light that even the date of disposal of the representation has not been mentioned in the counter affidavit. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions at the Bar placed before us a list of dates and a reproduction of the same is as follows : Representation dated 18.11.2022 Representation received date 23.11.2022 Remarks called on 25.11.2022 Reminder date 12.01.2023 Remarks received on 23.01.2023 File submitted on 24.01.2023 Under Secretary dealt with on 24.01.2023 Deputy Secretary dealt with on 24.01.2023 Additional Chief Secretary dealt with on 25.01.2023 Secretary Law dealt with on 27.01.2023 Minister for Food and Civil Supplies dealt with on 27.01.2023 Rejection Letter prepared on 27.01.2023 Rejection Letter sent to the detenu on [through e-mail] 27.01.2023 Government Holidays Falls on : 26.11.2022, 27.11.2022, 03.12.2022, 04.12.2022, 10.12.2022, 11.12.2022, 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 and 26.01.2023 Delay Points: Representation received on 23.11.2022 Reply sent to the Detenu 27.01.2023 Total Delay 65 Days Government Holidays 21 days Delay in considering representation 44 days A careful perusal of the above makes it clear that there has been delay of 44 days in considering the petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2022 and that the rejection was ultimately sent to the detenu only on 27.01.2023. The aforementioned list of dates makes it clear that remarks were called on 25.11.2022 and reminder had to be sent but that reminder itself was sent only on 12.01.2023. 6. Considering the representation of the detenu qua the detention order is a constitutional guarantee ingrained in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is Sanctus. Delay in considering the representation is fatal to the impugned detention order and unexplained delay in disposal of the representation is a breach of the constitutional guarantee and it renders continued detention impermissible and illegal. Therefore, it is Sanctus. Delay in considering the representation is fatal to the impugned detention order and unexplained delay in disposal of the representation is a breach of the constitutional guarantee and it renders continued detention impermissible and illegal. The lead case law on this point is celebrated case of K.M.Abdulla Kunhi and another vs. Union of India and others reported in 1991 (1) SC 476 and the most relevant paragraph qua paragraph No.12 is as follows: '12...........It is a constitutional mandate commanding the concerned authority to whom the detenu submits his representation to consider the representation and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The words "as soon as may be" occurring in clause (5) of Article 22 reflects the concern of the Framers that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency without an avoidable delay. However, there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no period prescribed either under the Constitution or under the concerned detention law, within which the representation should be dealt with. The requirement however, is that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal.' 7. The aforementioned K.M.Abdulla Kunhi's case has been followed in a long line of case laws and particularly in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1999 (1) SCC 417 which arose from Tamil Nadu. In Rajammal's case the Hon'ble Supreme court held that delay in considering representation on account of indifference or lapse, is clearly fatal to the impugned order and the test is how the delay is explained and not the length of the delay. We carefully considered the chronicle [list of dates] and as already alluded to supra, we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the delay has not been explained much less well explained. Therefore, as there is an infraction of the constitutional imperative, more particularly, constitutional imperative ingrained in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, we have no difficulty in saying that the impugned detention order deserves to be dislodged. 8. Therefore, as there is an infraction of the constitutional imperative, more particularly, constitutional imperative ingrained in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, we have no difficulty in saying that the impugned detention order deserves to be dislodged. 8. Ergo, the sequitur is captioned HCP is allowed and the detention order dated 26.09.2022 bearing reference Cr.M.P.34/Black Marketer/2022-C1 is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Dhanapal, aged 49 years, son of Thiru.Krishnan is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case. There shall be no order as to costs.