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

P. Sathasivam, J.—The mother of the detenu challenges the detention order dated 15.02.2005, detaining her son Saravanan as a goonda

under sub-section (1) of section 3 of 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).

Even at the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is unexplained delay in disposal of the representation of the

detenu, which vitiates the detention order.

The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate ( Criminal Side) show that the representation of the detenu was received on

04.03.2005 and remarks were called for on 07.03.2005. Remarks were received on 08.03.2005 and the file was submitted for proceedings on

09.03.2005. The same was dealt with by the Under Secretary on 10.03 .2005 and Additional/Deputy Secretary on 11.03.2005. The concerned

Minister passed an order on 14.03.2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 21.03.2005. Even if we exclude 19.03.2005 and

20.03.2005 being Saturday and Sunday respectively, there is no proper explanation for taking four clear days for preparation of the rejection

letter. Ultimately, the same was served on the detenu on 23.03.2 005. In the absence of proper explanation in between 14.03.2005 and

21.03.2005, we hold that the detenu was prejudiced in consideration of his representation. On this ground, the detention order is liable to be

quashed.

Under these circumstances, the impugned order of detention is set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be

set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.