AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
18 paragraphs · 381 wordsV. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Subbudu @ Subramanian, who was detained as a ''''Bootlegger
as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immo
Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982(Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 06.03.2006,
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 Pub Prosecutor has placed the details, which show
that the representation of the detenu dated 23.03.2006 was received by the Government on 27.03.2006 and remarks were called for on
28.03.2006 and the reminder was sent on 06.04.2006. Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 12.04.2006 and the File
was submitted on the same day i.e. on 12.04.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary also on the
same day i.e. on 12.04.2006 and finally, the Minister f or Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 13.04.2006. The rejection letter was prepared
on 05.05.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 09.05.2006 and served to him on 11.05.2006. As rightly pointed out by the Learned
Counsel for the petitioner , though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 13.04.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking
time for preparation of rejection letter till 05.05.2006. 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 i 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.