John Bose vs The Secretary to the Government, Prohibition and Excise Dept. and The District Magistrate and District Collector

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 26.04.2005, detaining him 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 19 82).

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 was delay in disposal of second representation dated 22-10 -2005 sent through counsel. According to him, the said delay has prejudiced the detenu in considering his representation. With regard to the same, learned Government Advocate has furnished the details which show that second representation dated 22-10-2005 was received by the Government on 25-10-2005; remarks were called for on 26-10-2005; remarks were received on 11-11-2005; file was submitted on 14-11-2005; Under Secretary and Deputy Deputy Secretary dealt with the file on 15 -11-2005 and finally Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on the same day i.e., on 15-11-2005, however rejection letter was prepared only on 29-11-2005; the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 30-11-2005 and the same was served on him on 2-12-2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the competent authority, namely, Minister for Prohibition and Excise had passed the order as early as 15-11-2005, the authorities are not justified in taking time till 29-11-2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. It is true that the rejection letter was prepared only after 14 days. However, it is to be noted that the said representation is the second representation sent through his counsel. It is also brought to our notice that though in the said representation certain documents have been prayed for, it is stated that the Advisory Board heard the detenu on 3-6-2005 and approved the detention order passed by the detaining authority. Though Courts have taken a view that all representations have to be considered by the authority concerned i.e., Government, it is not disputed that even the second representation of the detenu sent through his counsel was considered and rejected. Inasmuch as the grievance of the detenu aired through his counsel has been considered and rejected, merely because the authorities had taken a longer time in preparation of rejection letter in respect of 2nd representation, we are of the view that the detention cannot be faulted with. We are satisfied that the detenu has not prejudiced in taking time by the officers. Inasmuch as even the second representation has been considered and rejected, we are unable to accept the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner; consequently the petition fails and the same is dismissed.