AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—This Writ Application challenges the order of the second respondent made in Detention Order No. 15/2008 dated 16.7.2008 whereby the petitioner''s husband was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "Bootlegger".
The Court heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge.
Pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases viz., Crime No. 804/2007 under Sections 4(1)(k) TNP Act 1937 registered by Dindigul Taluk Police Station; Crime No. 334/2008 under Sections 4(1)(a) TNP Act, 1937 registered by Dindigul Taluk Police Station and in one ground case in Crime No. 159/2008 under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(a), 4(1-A) TNP Act read with 328 IPC was registered by Dindigul Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station, the detaining authority recorded his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health and that he should be detained as a "Bootlegger" and accordingly, made the order of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
Assailing the order of detention, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following grounds:
(i) Firstly, there was a pre-detention representation dated 10.7.2008 and the same came to be rejected on 15.7.2008. Though the order of rejection was served upon the detenu, it did not contain a report placed before the detaining authority. Thus, he was unable to understand what was the report.
(ii) Secondly, there was a delay in consideration of the representation made. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, representation was made on 12.8.2008 and received on 18.8.2008. Remarks were called for on 19.8.2008 but remarks were received only on 29.8.2008. Thus, there was delay of 9 days. There was second spell of delay in the same representation. Minister (P&E) dealt with on 18.9.2008 and rejection letter was prepared on 16.9.2008. Thus, there was delay of 8 days. These two spells of delay were remain unexplained. Hence, the order of detention has got to be set aside.
The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
After hearing the submissions and looking into the materials available, the Court has to necessarily agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner to set aside the order of detention on the two grounds put-forth by him.
It is an admitted position that there was a pre-detention representation made on 10.7.2008 and the same came to be rejected on 15.7.2008 and the rejection letter was served upon the detenu but it did not contain a copy of the report placed before the detaining authority. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, the detenu was not allowed to know about the contents of the report. Under the circumstances, it has caused prejudice to the detenu.
Secondly, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there were two spells of delay. Representation was made on 12.8.2008 and received on 18.8.2008. Remarks were called for on 19.8.2008 but remarks were received only on 29.8.2008. Thus, there was delay of 9 days. There was second spell of delay in the same representation. Minister (P&E) dealt with it on 18.9.2008 and rejection letter was prepared on 16.9.2008. Thus, there was delay of 8 days. These two spells of delay were remain unexplained. Hence, the order of detention has got to be set aside on this ground also.
On the two grounds referred to above, the order of detention has got to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.