Girija vs The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department and The District Magistrate and District Collector

P. Sathasivam, J.—Wife of the detenu-Thirunavukkarasu is the petitioner. She challenges the detention order dated 16-2-2005 detaining the

detenu Thirunavukkarasu as Goonda under Act 14 of 1982.

At the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was undue delay in disposal of the representation of the

detenu; hence the ultimate order passed is liable to be set aside. With reference to the said claim, the particulars furnished by the learned

Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 25-2-2005; remarks were called on 28-2-

2005 and remarks were received on 11-3-2005. In so far as the delay between 28-2-2005 and 11-3-2005, it is seen that the representation was

received by the Collectorate from the Government on 3-3-2005; remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 4-3-2005; remarks

were received from the sponsoring authority on 7-3-2005; and thereafter the Collectorate forwarded those remarks to the Government on 8-3-

2005. On receipt of the remarks, File was submitted on 11-3-2005; the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary on 11-3-2005; Deputy

Secretary on 14-3-2005 and the Minister for Prohibition and Excise has passed an order on 14-3-2005. The rejection letter was prepared only

on 21-3-2005 and the same was served on the detenu on 23-3-2005. Though there was explanation with reference to the delay between 28-2-

2005 and 11-3-2005, there is no proper explanation for taking 7 days'' time after the order passed by the Minister for Prohibition and Excise.

Even if we exclude Saturday and Sunday, we are of the view that in the absence of any explanation, the time taken for preparation of the rejection

letter till 21-3-2005 is on the higher side. In the absence of proper explanation, we hold that the representation of the detenu was not properly

disposed of, which ultimately vitiates the detention order. On this ground the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detention order is set

aside and the petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless his detention is required for any other

cause.