Chellaswamy vs The District Collector and District Magistrate, The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department and The Inspector of Police

G.M. Akbar Ali, J

The Petitioner is the father of the detenu, namely, Reegan. Challenging an Order of Detention made by the first Respondent in P.D. No. 15/2010 on 19.11.2010 branding the detenu as a "Goonda" under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), this Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

Advancing the arguments assailing the order of the detention, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that there are unexplained delay of seven days at two stages in considering the representation of the detenu and therefore, the detention order is vitiated.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents and perused the records.

It is seen from the Performa produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor before this Court that the first representation of the detenu was received on 02.12.2010, remarks were called for on 03.12.2010 but remarks were received only on15.12.2010. Thus, there was a delay of 11 days, out of which, 4 days happened to be holidays i.e.4.12.2010, 5.12.2010, 11.12.2010 and 12.12.2010 and in effect, there was a delay of 7 days in considering the representation, which remains unexplained. Apart from that, at another stage, there was delay of 11 days. Though File was circulated to Hon''ble Minister (Law, Courts and Prisons) on 16.12.2010, rejection letter was prepared only on 28.12.2010. In the interregnum, there was delay of 12 days, out of which five days were holidays viz., 17.12.2010, 18.12.2010,19.12.2010, 25.12.2010 and 26.12.2010, the remaining seven days delay was not explained.

Such unexplained delay in considering the representation would amount to deprivation of making effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the detention order in P.D. No. 15/2010 dated 19.11.2010 passed by the first Respondent is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.