G. Arul vs The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department and The Commissioner of Police

P. Sathasivam, J.—Petitioner, brother of the detenu-G. Shanmugam, who was detained as a Goonda under Act 14 of 1982 by the

impugned proceedings dated 25-8-2005, challenges the same in this petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for respondents.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The particulars

furnished by the learned Government Advocate would show that the representation of the detenu dated 5-9-2005 was received by the

Government along with their remarks on 12-9-2005. Thereafter, the File was submitted on 13-9-2005 and dealt with by the Under Secretary and

the Deputy Secretary on the same day i.e., on 13-9-2 005. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition passed an order on 14-9-2 005. However,

rejection letter was prepared only on 23-9-2005 and thereafter the same was sent to the Superintendent, Central Prison for service 23-9-2005

itself and the rejection letter was served on the detenu on 24-9-2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the

competent authority, namely, Minister for Prohibition has passed an order on 14-9-2005, there is no explanation for taking time till 23-9-2005 for

preparation of rejection letter. Even if we exclude the intervening holidays namely, 17-9-2005 and 18-9-2005, we are of the view that the time

taken by the officers for preparation of the rejection letter is on the higher side which caused prejudice to the detenu in considering his

representation. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention is set aside and the detenu-Shanmugam is directed to be set at

liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.