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

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Senthil Kumar, 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 23.01.2 006, 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 dated 0 5.04.2006 was received by the Government on 06.04.2006 and remarks were called for on

07.04.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 17.04.2006 and the File was submitted on 18.04.2006 and the same was dealt

with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day i.e. on 18.04.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed

orders on 19.04.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.05.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 11.05.2006 and served to him

on 12.05.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on

19.04.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 1 0.05.2006. 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.