M. Elumalai vs State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 30.11.2005, detaining him as ''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).

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 the representation of the detenu, which vitiates

the ultimate order of detention. In respect of the same, learned Government Advocate has produced the particulars, which show that the

representation of the detenu, dated 15.12.2005, was received by the Government on 19.12.2005 and remarks were called for on 20.12.2005.

The particulars of the Collectorate show that the intimation was received from the Government on 15.12.2005 and remarks were, in turn, called

for from the Sponsoring Authority on 26.12.2005, however, the same were received from the Sponsoring Authority only on 13.01.2006, sent to

the Government on 19.01.2006 and the same was received by it on the same day. The File was submitted on 20.01.2006 and the same was dealt

with by the Under Secretary on the same day i.e., on 20.01.2006 and by the Deputy Secretary on 23.01.2006. Finally, the Minister for

Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23.01.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 30.01.2006 and sent to the Prison on the same day

and was served on the detenue on 02.02.2006.

As rightly pointed out, though remarks were called for from the Sponsoring Authority on 26.12.2005, the same were received by the

Collectorate only on 13.01.2006. There is no explanation at all for taking time till 13.01.2006 by the Sponsoring Authority for collecting the

remarks. We hold that, in the absence of proper explanation by the person concerned, the delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to

the detenu in considering his representation effectively. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty

forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.