Manohari vs The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department and The District Magistrate and District Collector

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Gandhi, who is detained as a ''''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), by the impugned detention order dated 02.03.2006, 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 detenu, 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 detenu dated 15.03.2006 was received by the Government on 17.03.2006 and the remarks were called for on the

same day i.e. on 17.03.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 27.03.2006 and the File was submitted on 30.03.2006 and

the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on the same day i.e. on 30.03.2006 and finally, the Minister for

Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 31.03.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.04.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on

12.04.2006 and served to him on 15.04.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition

and Excise passed an order on 31.03.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 10.04.2006. 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 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 the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.