Helen vs The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department and The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirapalli Range and in-charge of Commisioner of Police

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Manikandan, who was detained as ''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 24.10.2005, challenges the

same in this Petition.

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

At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation of the detenu

dated 7.11.2005, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With regard to the above contention, learned Government Advocate has placed

certain details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 07.11.2005 was received by the Government on 08.1 1 .2005 and remarks

were called for on 09.11.2005 and the same was received by the Government on 18.11.2005. Thereafter, the file was submitted on the same date

i.e. on18.11.2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 21.11.2005 and finally, the Minister for

Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 22.11.200 5. But the rejection letter was prepared only on 29.11.2005 and the same was sent to the

detenu on 30.11.2005 and the same was served to him on 02.12.2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the

Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 22.11.2005, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter

till 29.11.2005. 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 side 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 custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.