High CourtsDivision Bench(2006) 07 MAD CK 0039

Ashokumar vs The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and The District Collector and District Magistrate

Madras High Court · Decided on 11 July 2006

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Dhanapalan, J · P. Sathasivam, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 421 of 2006

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 284 words

V. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner by name Ashokumar, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 20.03.2006, detaining his mother

Lakshmi as "" Bootlegger"" 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, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

2.

Heard both sides.

3.

Even at the foremost the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was delay in considering the representation of the detenue,

which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the said claim the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed details, which

show that the representation of the detenue dated 18.04.2006 was received by the Government on 19.04.2006 and remarks were called on

21.04.2006, remarks were received on 02.05.2006. After receipt of the remarks, the file was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy

Secretary on 03.05.2006; order was passed by the Minister for Prohibition and Excise on 04.05.2006, rejection letter was prepared on

10.05.2006; the same was sent to the detenue on 11 .05 .2006 and the rejection letter was served on the detenue on 15.05.20 06. As rightly

pointed out though the Minister has passed an order on 04.05.2006, there is no explanation or reason for preparing the rejection letter till

10.05.2006. In the absence of any explanation, we hold that there is a delay between 04.05.2006 and 10.05.2006. On this ground, the impugned

detention order is quashed; accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order of detention impugned in the petition is set aside and the detenue is

directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless she is required in connection with any other case.