Raja @ Katturaja vs The District Magistrate and District Collector and The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise XII Department

V. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner by name Raja @ Kattu Raja, who was 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 20.01.2006, 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 20.01.2006 was received by the Government on 02.02.2006 and the remarks were called for on

06.02.2006. The reminder was sent on 08.02.2006. The representation of the detenu was received from the Government on 10.02.2006 and the

parawar remarks were called for from the Sponsoring authority on 13.02.2006 and the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority on

16.02.2006 and the report was sent to the Government on 17.02.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on the same day i.e. on

17.02.2006 and thereafter, the file was submitted on 20.02.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on

the same day i.e. on 20.02.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 21.02.2006. The rejection letter was

prepared on 24.02.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 27.02.2006 and served to him on 01.03.2006. As rightly pointed out by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed order on 21.02.2006, there is no explanation at all for

taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 24.02.2006. Here again, though parawar remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on

13.02.2006, the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority by the Collectorate only on 16.02.2006 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 two spells of delay, viz., between 21.02.2006 and 24.02.2006 as well as 13.02.2006 and 16.02.2006, 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.