Arunachalam vs The State Government

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Arunachalam, who was detained as a '''' 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), by the impugned detention order dated 2.12.2 005, challenges the same in this Petition.

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 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 Government Advocate has placed the details, which show that

the representation of the detenu dated 02.01.2006 was received by the Government on 03.01.2006 and remarks were called for on 04.01.2006.

Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 12.01.2006 and the File was submitted on 13.01.2006 and the same was dealt with

by the Under Secretary on the same date i.e. on 1 3.01.2006 and by the Deputy Secretary on 16.01.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition

and Excise passed orders on the same date i.e. on 16.01.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 30.01.2006 and the same was sent to the

detenu on 31.01.2006 and served to him on 03.02.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for

Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 16.01.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till

30.01.2006. 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 s 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.