M. Reeta vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the daughter of the detenue by name Chinnaponnu, who is 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

13.03.2006, 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 detenue, which

vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the details, which show

that the representation of the detenue dated 03.04.2006 was received by the Government on 05.04.2006 and remarks were called for on

06.04.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 17.04.2006 and the File was submitted on 19.04.2006 and the same was dealt

with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on the same day i.e. on 19.04.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise

passed orders on 20.04.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.05.2006 and the same was sent to the detenue on 12.05.2006 and served

to him on 17.05.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an

order on 20.04.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 10.05.2006. 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 detenue in disposal of her 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 detenue is directed to be set at liberty

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