Anjali vs The Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Dept., The Commissioner of Police, The Inspector of Police, L and O and The Superintendent, Central Prison

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner is the mother of the detenu by name Palani. She challenges the impugned order of detention, dated

25.05.2005, detaining her son as ''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).

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The

particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu dated 18.06.2005 was received by the

Government on 21.06.2005, remarks were called for on 22.06.2005 and the same were received on 27.06.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt

with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 28.06.2005. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 29.0 6.2005.

However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 06.07.2005 . The said letter was sent to the Prison for service on the same date and served to

the detenu on 07.07.2005.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the competent authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and Excise, passed

orders on 29.06.2005, there is no reason for taking time till 06.07.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper

explanation, even if we exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to the

detenu in considering his representation effectively. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is quashed.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty

forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.