G. Ramaiyyan vs State of Tamilnadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner is the father of the detenu. He challenges the detention order dated 02.02.2005, detaining his 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).

After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, at the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that in view of the delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, the ultimate order passed by the Detaining Authority is liable to be quashed.

The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that representation of the detenu was received by the Government on

14.02.2005, remarks were called for on 15.02.2005, remarks were received on 21.02.2005, file was submitted on 22.02.2005, Under Secretary

and Deputy Secretary dealt with the same on 23.02.2005 and the Minister for Prohibition and Excise also passed orders on 23.02.2005.

However, rejection letter was prepared only on 02.03.2005 and the same was sent to the detenu on 02.03.2005 itself and it was served to him on

05.03.2005. There is no proper explanation for the delay between 23.02.2005, when the concerned authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and

Excise, passed the order, and 02.03.2005, when the rejection letter was prepared. In the absence of proper explanation, even if we exclude the

intervening holidays on Saturday and Sunday, we hold 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 dated 02.02.2005 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.