AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Petitioner is the father of the detenu by name Venkatesan @ Pavadai Venkatesan, who was detained as a Goonda
under Act 14 of 198 2 by the impugned proceedings dated 25-8-2005. He challenges the same in this petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for respondents.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was delay in consideration of the representation of the detenu. With
reference to the same, learned Government Advocate furnished a detailed statement which shows that the representation of the detenu was
received on 29-9-2005 along with their remarks. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary to the Government
on 30-9-2005 and the Minister for Prohibition passed an order on 03-10-2005. However, rejection letter was prepared on 10-10-2005 and the
same was sent to the detenu on 10-10-2005 and served on the detenu on 11-10-2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, though the Minister has passed an order as early as on 03-10-2005, rejection letter was prepared only on 1 0-10-2005. Even if we
exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the time taken by the officers for preparation of the rejection letter is on the higher side. In
the absence of proper explanation, we hold that the delay has caused prejudice to the detenu in consideration of his representation. On this ground,
the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention is set aside and the detenu-Venkatesan @ Pavadai Venkatesan
is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.