Rudhrakotti vs The Commissioner of Police and Government of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner herein challenges the detention order dated 02.03.2006, detaining his son by name Viji @ Vijayaraghavan

as ''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).

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 was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The

particulars furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor show that the representation was received by the Government on 20.03.2006.

File was submitted on the next day, ie., on 21.03.2006. Under Secretary dealt with the File on the same day and the Deputy Secretary on

22.03.2006. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23.03.2006. However, the Rejection letter was prepared only on

10.04.2006, sent to the detenu for service on 11.04.2006 and served to him on 12.04.2006.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the competent authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and Excise, passed

orders on 23.03.2006, there is no reason for taking time till 10.04.2006 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper

explanation, even if we exclude the intervening holidays, we hold that the delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to the detenu in

considering his representation effectively. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is quashed.

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.