Gunasekar vs The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department and The District Collector and District Magistrate

V. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner by name Gunasekar, who was detained as a ''''Goonda"" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu

Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and

Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 01.03.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public prosecutor for the respondents.

At the foremost, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is enormous delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which

vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim, learned Additional Pub Prosecutor has placed the details, which show

that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 16.03.2006 and the remarks were received on the same day i.e. on

16.03.2006 and File was submitted on 17.03.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary also on the

same day i.e. on 17.03.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 20.03.2006. The rejection letter was prepared

on 27.03.2006 and the same was sent t o the detenu on 28.03.2006 and served to him on 30.03.2006. As rightly pointed out by the Learned

Counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 20.03.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking

time for preparation of rejection letter till 27.03.2006. In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned even after excluding the

intervening holidays, we are of the view that the time taken for preparation of rejection letter is on the higher sid e and we hold that the said delay

has prejudiced the detenu in disposal of his representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty

forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.