Mr. Govindappa vs The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dharmapuri and The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Exercise Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Madras

A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a ground to the effect that the detenue sent a representation on 28.7.2001 by registered post with acknowledgment due and the same was received on behalf of the Chief Secretary on 30.7.2001. The learned counsel also produces the original postal acknowledgment before this Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that the same was not considered and hence the detention order is liable to be set aside.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor interalia would resist the petition contending that inasmuch as the petitioner did not send the representation to the detaining authority direct, the petitioner cannot complain of any prejudice or hardship.

After the examination in detail, this court is of the opinion that when the Chief Secretary received the representation, he should have without any unreasonable delay, forwarded the same to the concerned Department for consideration according to law. We examined the original postal acknowledgement produced by the petitioner and we are satisfied that the detenue should have sent a representation to the Chief Secretary. In fact, the State is also not disputing as to the genuineness of the document (i.e.,) postal acknowledgement.

In this view of the matter, the detention order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the H. C. P. is allowed. The order of detention dated 24.4.2001 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside. The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless she is required in some other case.