M. Dawood vs The District Magistrate and District Collector of Tirunelveli Kattabomman District and The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9

Arunachalam, J.—Petitioner Dawood is a friend of Murugiah Pandian, who has been detained as a goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of

1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dated 12.4.1995, passed by the first Respondent, District Magistrate and Collector, Tirunelveli

Kattabomman District, with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

We do not intend narrating the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order, for this Habeas Corpus Petition will have to be

allowed on the short ground of unexplained delay in the disposal of representation of the detenu.

Representation dated 31.5.1995, posted by the detenu on 12.6.1995, was admittedly received by the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil

Nadu on 13.6.1995. However, it was forwarded by the Chief Secretary to Public Department only on 22.6.1995 and received in the Prohibition

and Excise Department on 23.6.1995, leading to rejection of representation on 14.7.1995. We have perused the representation. Under the head

Subject"", the date and number of the impugned order and the authority who had passed it, have been clearly stated. When that be so, no

explanation, whatever, has been offered as to why the Chief Secretary had not forwarded the representation to the concerned Department on the

very same day, without keeping it lying idle on his table for over ten days. All departments are in the same campus. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor fairly stated that no explanation, whatever, can be offered for this delay. We further find that even after 23.6.1995, the State

Government had taken 21 days to dispose of the representation. Even on the first patch of delay, we are satisfied that the representation has not

been considered continuously and expeditiously as ordained by law. If any explanation had been offered, then we would have certainly considered

whether any leeway could be given for administrative delays. When no explanation is admittedly forthcoming, we have to hold that there is a

serious lacuna.

It was then pointed out that an earlier representation dated 14.5.1995 was considered and rejected by Government. That, in fact, on perusal,

would indicate that it is not a representation at all. It was a letter addressed to the Advisory Board, praying for assistance of a lawyer or a friend.

The other request in the letter to the Advisory Board, was for production of Rajendran, a person in jail, to be examined as a witness by the detenu.

Hence, we have to take it that the only representation forwarded by the detenu, stood disposed of belatedly. On that sole ground, the detenu is

bound to succeed.

Impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise required. This Habeas

Corpus Petition is allowed.