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

V. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner by name Raji, who is detained as a ''''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 23.01.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is enormous delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which

vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the details, which show

that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 01.03.2006 and remarks were called for on 02.03.2006 and the

remarks were received by the Government on 06.03.2 006 and the File was submitted on 07.03.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under

Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day i.e. on 07.03.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on

08.03.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 15 .03.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on the same day i.e. on 15.03.2006 and

served to him on 16.03.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise

passed an order on 08.03.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 15.03.2006. 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 the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.