ORDER : Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, relating to the petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 28.06.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in proceedings memo D.O. No. C2/18/2024, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Iruthayaraj, S/o. Agastiyan, aged 39 years before this High Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore. 1. The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in his office D.O. No. C2/18/2024 dated 28.06.2024, is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. The order of detention sought to be assailed and the fact as narrated would reveal that, there is a delay of four days in considering the representation. The delay in considering the representation and the period during which the detenu was under detention would be construed as violation of the Constitutional mandatory under Article 22 of Constitution of India and thus, the ground of delay in considering the representation became fatal in the case of preventive detention. 4. It is trite law that the representation should be very expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. From the records produced, we find that no acceptable explanation has been offered for the inordinate delay. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, (1999) 1 SCC 417 it has been held as follows: “7. It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, (1999) 1 SCC 417 it has been held as follows: “7. It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words “as soon as may be” in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest. But that does not mean that the authority is pre-empted from explaining any delay which would have occasioned in the disposal of the representation. The court can certainly consider whether the delay was occasioned due to permissible reasons or unavoidable causes. This position has been well delineated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 476 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 613. The following observations of the Bench can profitably be extracted here: (SCC p. 484, Para 12) “It is a constitutional mandate commanding the authority concerned 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 detention law concerned, 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.” 6. As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited Rajammal's case cited supra, number of days of delay is immaterial and what is to be considered is whether the delay caused has been properly explained by the authorities concerned. But, here the inordinate delay has not been properly explained at all. 7. As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited Rajammal's case cited supra, number of days of delay is immaterial and what is to be considered is whether the delay caused has been properly explained by the authorities concerned. But, here the inordinate delay has not been properly explained at all. 7. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala, 2011 STPL (Web) 999 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is a history of insistence on procedural safeguards. The expression 'as soon as may be', in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India clearly shows the concern of the makers of the Constitution that the representation, made on behalf of the detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay. 8. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of delay on the part of the Government in disposing of the representation of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, D.O. No. C2/18/2024 dated 28.06.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz. Thiru. Iruthayaraj, S/o. Agastiyan, aged about 39 years, now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.