Raja vs The District Magistrate and District Collector and The Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Dept.

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 15.11.2005, detaining his son-in-law by name

Podiyans @ Duraisamy as ''Bootlegger'' 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).

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 was delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates

the ultimate order of detention. In respect of the same, learned Government Advocate has produced the particulars, which show that the

representation of the detenu, dated 10.01.2006, was received by the Government on 16.01.2006 and remarks were called for on 17.01.2006.

The particulars of the Collectorate show that the intimation was received from the Government on 21.01.2006 and remarks were, in turn, called

for from the Sponsoring Authority on 23.01.2006, however, the same were received from the Sponsoring Authority only on 27.01.2006, sent to

the Government on 03.02.2006 and received by it on 07.0 2.2006. The File was submitted on 08.02.2006 and the same was dealt with by the

Under Secretary Deputy Secretary on 10.02.2006. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 13.02.2006 . The rejection

letter was prepared on 17.02.2006 and sent to the Prison for service on 20.02.2006 and the same was served on the detenue on 22.02.2006.

As rightly pointed out, though remarks were called for from the Sponsoring Authority on 17.01.2006, the same were received by the

Collectorate only on 27.01.2006. There is no explanation at all for taking time till 27.01.2006 by the Sponsoring Authority for collecting the

remarks. We hold that, in the absence of proper explanation by the person concerned, the delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to

the detenu in considering his representation effectively. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty

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