M. Anandhai vs District Magistrate and District Collector and Others

A.K. Rajan, J.—The detenu''s wife is the petitioner herein.

The detenu is found to have been involved in four previous cases of prohibition offences and on 22.11.2002 at 10.30 house, he was found to be

selling illicit arrack. A person by name Kannan consumed the arrack, found giddiness and on his complaint, the Authorities raided the place and

found Murugan, the detenu, selling illicit arrack and a case was registered in Crime No. 777 of 2002. On the basis of analysis, the arrack was

found to contain poisonous substance and therefore, the detaining authority arrived at a subjective satisfaction that there is an absolute necessity to

detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under

the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Therefore, he passed the impugned order, whereby, the detenu was detained. Challenging the

detention order, this writ petition has been filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the representation, abruptly, the rejection order was served on the

detenu.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed the following particulars as to how the representation was disposed of by the Government:

Representation dated : 6.1.2003

Representation received on : 13.1.2003

Remarks called on : 14.1.2003

Representation received by

the Collectorate from the

Government/Central Prison on : 20.1.2003

Parawar Remarks called for

from Sponsoring Authority on : 21.1.2003

Remarks received from the

Sponsoring Authority on : 22.1.2003

Report sent to the Government

by the Collectorate on : 23.1.2003

Remarks received on : 27.1.2003

File submitted on : 28.1.2003

Under Secretary dealt with

the file on : 29.1.2003

Additional/Deputy Secretary

dealt with the file on : 29.1.2003

Minister for Law dealt with

the file on : 31.1.2003

Rejection letter prepared on : 6.2.2003

Rejection letter served on : 8.2.2003

From the above, it is seen that the Minister for Law has signed the rejection order on 31.1.2003, but the rejection order was prepared only on

6.2.2003,even though when the file was sent to the Minister, a draft letter of rejection was also sent. Thereafter, once the Minister has signed it, the

office has to simply type it and send the rejection letter. But, for that purpose, the office has taken a time of six days. There is no satisfactory

explanation for that delay. Hence, we are satisfied that the detention order is vitiated for not considering the representation expeditiously as

required under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

In the circumstances, the order of detention passed against the detenu is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the writ petition

Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.