Govindasamy vs The State of Tamil Nadu

V. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner by name Govindasamy, who was detained as a ''''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), by the impugned detention order dated 31.01.2006, 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 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 06.03.2006 was received by the Government on 07.03.2006 and remarks were called for on 08.03.2006

and the reminder was sent on 15.03.2006. Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 30.03.2006 and the File was submitted

on 31.03.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary on the same day i.e. on 31.03.2006 and by the Deputy Secretary on

03.04.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 04.04.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.04.2006

and the same was sent to the detenu on the same day i.e. on 10.04.2006 and served to him on 15.04.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned

Counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 04.04.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking

time for preparation of rejection letter till 10.04.2006. 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.