Mrs. Jayasheeli vs The Commissioner of Police and The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, the mother of the detenu, by name, Madhan, who was detained as a ""Goonda"" under the Tamil Nadu

Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and

Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by the impugned proceedings, dated 26.5.2005, challenges the same in this petition.

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

At the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is an inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of

the detenu, dated 23.12.2005, and that on this ground, the detention order is liable to be interfered with. With reference to the same, the

particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on

29.12.2005 and remarks were called for on 30.12.2005. The remarks were received on 05.1.2006. Thereafter, the file was submitted on

06.1.2006 and dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy secretary on the same date, i.e. on 06.1.2006. Finally, an order was passed by

the Minister for Prohibition and Excise on 09.1.2006. However, the rejection letter was prepared on 24.1.2006 and sent to the detenu on the

same date. The rejection letter was served to the detenu on 25.1.2006. As rightly pointed out, though the competent authority, namely, the

Minister for Prohibition and Excise has passed the order as early as on 09.1.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time till 24.1.2006 for

preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper explanation by the person concerned, we hold that the delay in disposal of the

representation has caused prejudice to the detenu. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed and accordingly it is

quashed.

The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody, unless he is required in

connection with any other case.