R. Rasathi vs The District Magistrate and District Collector and The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Ramalingam, who was detained as a ""Goonda"" as contemplated

u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic

Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short ""Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"") by the impugned order of detention dated 08.09.2005,

challenges the same in this petition.

Heard both sides.

At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was undue delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu dated

26.09.2005 which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the said aspect, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has furnished

the particulars, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 26.09.2005 was received by the Government on 28.09.2005 and remarks

were called for on 30.09.2005. Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 19.10.2005 and the file was submitted on

20.10.2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on the same day, i.e. on 20.10.2005 and finally, the

Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed the order on 21.10.2005. The rejection letter was prepared on 28.10.2005 and the same was sent to

the detenu on 31.10.2005 and served to him on 03.11.2005. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though an order was passed by

the Minister for Prohibition and Excise even on 21.10.2005, there is no justifiable reason for taking time till 28.10.2005 for preparation of the

rejection letter. She has also pointed out that though the sponsoring authority has received a communication from the Collectorate on 05.10.2005,

the Government has furnished remarks only on 15.10.2005, i.e. after a period of 10 days. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, though the sponsoring authority has received the intimation even on 05.10.2005 requesting to forward the necessary remarks, the same

were received by the Collectorate from the sponsoring authority only on 15.10.2005. It is not in dispute that only at the instance of the sponsoring

authority, the impugned detention order came to be passed. In such circumstances, it would not open to the sponsoring authority to have taken 10

days time for forwarding the remarks to the Collectorate and there is no explanation from the officer concerned for taking such time.

Coming to the delay between 21.10.2005 and 28.10.2005, here again, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, even

though the highest authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and Excise has passed order on 21.10.2005, there is no reason at all for taking time till

28.10.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned in the form of an affidavit, we hold

that the delay is on the higher side, which ultimately vitiates the detention order passed by the detaining authority. On this ground, the detention

order is liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is quashed.

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 the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.