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 detention order of the second respondent in No.108/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 06.09.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of detenu namely Sudalaimuthu @ Venkatesh, S/o.Subbaiah, aged 22 years, detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this 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 mother of the detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 06.09.2022 bearing reference No.108/BCDFGISSSV/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 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 are two adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.428 of 2022 on the file of T3 Korattur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 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.B.M.Santharam, learned counsel 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 submission, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to the contrary and placed before us the list of dates and the details are as follows:

''Representation dated .. 29.09.2022

Representation received on .. 03.10.2022

File submitted on .. 12.10.2022

Under Secretary dealt with on .. 12.10.2022

Deputy Secretary dealt with on .. 12.10.2022

Minister dealt with on .. 18.10.2022

Rejection letter prepared on .. 18.10.2022

Rejection letter sent to the detenu on .. 18.10.2022

Govt. Holidays:

04.10.2022, 05.10.2022, 08.10.2022, 09.10.2022, 15.10.2022 and 16.10.2022''

7. A careful perusal of the list of dates brings to light that there is seven days delay in considering the representation. As regards making an effective representation against a preventive detention order, the same is a constitutional safeguard ingrained in Clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. If this constitutional safeguard is hampered, it vitiates the impugned detention order. We also hasten to make it clear that there cannot be any straight jacket formula with regard to number of days within which a representation has to be disposed of. Delay in considering the representation point has to be dealt with on case to case basis. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the matter, we find that thi