Valarmathi vs The District Magistrate and District Collector and The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. She challenges the detention order dated 31.01.2005, detaining her husband 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 of1982).

Even at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is undue delay in considering the representation of the detenu dated

11.03.2005. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the same was received by the Government on

16.3.2005.Though the said intimation was received by the Collectorate on 17.3.2005,remarks were received by the Collectorate from the

Sponsoring Authority only on 30.3.2005. Thereafter, the same were sent to the Government and received by the Government on 01.04.2005.

Again, the File was submitted for orders on07.04.2005. The File was dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 07.04.2005 and the Minister for

Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 08.04.2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 18.04.2005. Ultimately, the rejection

letter was sent to the detenu on 20.04.2005 and served to the detenu on 23.04.2005. The particulars furnished by the learned Government

Advocate show that there was inordinate delay on three occasions, namely, initially at the hands of Collectorate/Sponsoring Authority, secondly at

the hands of the officials in submitting the file before the concerned authority, that is, between 01.04.2005 and 07.04.2005 and thirdly, while

preparing the rejection letter .Though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise, who is the concerned authority ,has passed orders on 08.04.2005, it

is is not clear as to why the Officers concerned had taken time till 18.04.2005 in preparation of the order issued by the competent authority. In the

absence of explanation by the persons concerned, we hold that the delay on the above said occasions is on the higher side, which vitiates the

ultimate order of detention.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 31.01.2005 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.