Parthiban vs The Commissioner of Police and The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, by name Parthiban, 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 08.08.2005, 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,

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 19.09.2005 was received by the Government on 20.09.2005 and remarks were called for on

21.09.2005 and remarks were received by the Government on 23.09.2005. Thereafter, the file was submitted on 26.09 .2005 and the same was

dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same date i.e. on 26.09.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise

passed orders on 27.09.2005. The rejection letter prepared on 05.10.2005 was sent to the detenu on the same date i.e. on 05.10.2005 and the

same was served to him on 06.10 .2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and

Excise passed an order on 27.09.2005, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 05.10.2005. 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.