Manoharan vs State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the husband of the detenue by name Shanthi, 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 26.04.2006, 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 05.05.2006 was received by the Government on 09.05.2006 and the remarks were called for on

10.05.2006 and the representation of the detenue was received from the Government on 12.05.2006 and the parawar remarks were called for

from the Sponsoring authority on the same day i.e. on 12.05.2006 and the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority on 18.05.2006.

Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 19.05.2006 and the File was submitted on 22.05.2006 and the same was dealt with

by the Under Secretary on the same day i.e. 22.05.2006 and by the Deputy Secretary on 23.05.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and

Excise passed orders on 24.05.200 6. The rejection letter was prepared on the same day i.e. on 24.05.2 006 and the same was sent to the

detenue on 26.05.2006 and served to her on 29.05.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though parawar

remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 12.05.2006, the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority by the

Collectorate only on 18.05.2006 and there is no explanation at all for sending the remarks to the Collectorate belatedly. 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 sending the remarks

to the Collectorate 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.