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

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Gnanam, who was detained 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), by the impugned detention order dated 21.09.2005, 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 unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation of the detenu,

which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With regard to the above contention, learned Government Advocate has placed certain details, which

show that the representation of the detenu dated 26.09.2005 was received by the Government on 27.09.2005 and remarks were called for on

28.09.2005 and remarks were received by the Government on 04.10.2005. Thereafter, the file was submitted on 05.10.2005 and the same was

dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 06.10.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on

07.10.2005. The rejection letter was prepared on 17.10.2005 and the same was sent to the detenu on 18.10.2005 and served to him on

20.10.2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on

07.10.2005, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 17.10.2 005. 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 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 custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.