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

V. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu by name Selvam @ Selvakumar, 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 25.02.2006,

challenges the same in this Petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 09.03.2006 was received by the Government on 14.03.2006 and remarks were called for on 15.03.2006

and the reminder was sent on 31.03.2006. Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 11.04.2006 and the File was submitted

on the same day i.e. on 11.04.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 12.04.2006 and finally, the

Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 13.04.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 05.05.2006 and the same was sent to the

detenu on 09.05.2006 and served to him on 11.05.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for

Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 13.04.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till

05.05.2006. 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 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.