Murugan vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Murugan, who was 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 22.11.2005, 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 enormous delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which

vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim, learned Government Advocate has placed the details, which show that

the representation of the detenu dated 30.11.2005 was received by the Government on 05.12.2005 and the remarks were called for on

06.12.2005. The reminder was sent on 15.12.2005 and the remarks were received by the Government on 23.12.2005 and thereafter, the file was

submitted on the same day i.e. on 23.12.2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary also on the same day i.e. on 23.12.2005 and

by the Deputy Secretary on 26.12.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 27.12.2005. The rejection letter was

prepared on 04.01.2 006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 05.01.2006 and served to him on 09.01.2006. The particulars of the

Collectorate show that the intimation was received from the Government on 06.12.2005 and the parawar remarks were called for from the

Sponsoring authority on 08.12.2005 and the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority on 15.12.2005 and the report was sent to the

Government on 23.12.2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the parawar remarks were called for from the

sponsoring authority on 08.12.2005, the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority by the Collectorate only on 15.12.2005. Here

again, though the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority by the Collectorate on 15.12.2005, the report was sent to the Government

only on 23.12.2005. There is no explanation at all for sending the remarks to the Collectorate and report to the Government belatedly. In the

absence of any explanation by the person concerned even after excluding the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the two spells of delay,

viz., between 8.1 2.2005 and 15.12.2005 as well as 15.12.2005 and 23.12.2005, is on the higher side and in the absence of proper explanation

by the persons concerned, the delay has prejudiced the detenu in considering 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.