Vivekanandan vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.

The petitioner, who is the friend of the detenu by name Ginji @ Kathirvel, who is detained as a ''Drug Offender"" as contemplated u/s 3(1) of 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 25.02.2006, 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 dated 1 2.04.2006 was received by the Government on 20.04.2006 and remarks were called for on

21.04.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 05.05.2006 and the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy

Secretary on 09.05.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23.05.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on

the same day i.e. on 23.05.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 28.05.2006 and served to him on 29.05.2006 . As rightly pointed out by

the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the Deputy Secretary dealt with the file on 09.05.2006, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise

passed an order only on 23.05.2006 and there is no explanation at all for taking time for passing the order till 23.05.2006. 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 passing the order 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.