Arunachalam vs State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner herein, who is the cousin sister of the detenue by name Sundari, challenges the impugned order of

detention, dated 28.10.2 005 detaining her 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 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 delay in disposal of the representation of the detenue, which vitiates

the ultimate order of detention. In respect of the same, learned Government Advocate has produced the particulars, which show that the

representation of the detenue, dated 23.11.2005, was received by the Government on 29.11.2005 and remarks were called for on 3 0.11.2005,

reminder was sent on 13.12.2005. The particulars of the Collectorate show that the intimation was received from the Government on 05.12.2005

and remarks were, in turn, called for from the Sponsoring Authority on 06.12.2005, however, the same were received from the Sponsoring

Authority only on 11.12.2005, sent to the Government on 12.12.2005 and the same was received by it on 15.12.2005. The File was submitted on

16.12.2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 16.12. 2005 itself. Finally, the Minister for

Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 19.12.2005. The rejection letter was prepared on 20.12.2005 and sent to the Prison on the same day

and was served on the detenue on 28.12.2005.

As rightly pointed out, though remarks were called for from the Sponsoring Authority on 06.12.2005, the same were received by the

Collectorate only on 11.12.2005. There is no explanation at all for taking time till 11.12.2005 by the Sponsoring Authority for collecting the

remarks. We hold that, in the absence of proper explanation by the person concerned, the delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to

the detenue in considering his representation effectively. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.

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

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