M. Seethalakshmi vs The District Magistrate and District Collector and The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Manoharan, who was detained 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 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 15.09.2005, 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 unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation of the detenu,

which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With regard to the above contention, learned Government Advocate has placed certain details, which

show that the representation of the detenu dated 21.09.2005 was received by the Government on 27.09.2005 and remarks were called for on the

same date i.e. on 27.09.2005 and the reminder was sent on 05.10.2005 and remarks were received by the Government on 19.10.2005.

Thereafter, the file was submitted on 20.10.2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 21.10.2005 and

finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on the same date i.e. on 21.10.2005. The rejection letter was prepared on

28.10.2005 and the same was sent to the detenu on 31.10.2005 and served to him on 05.11.2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel

for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 21.10.2005, there is no explanation at all for taking time for

preparation of rejection letter till 28.10.2005. 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 custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.