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 · 371 wordsV. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu by name Gunasekaran, who is 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
12.03.2006, 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 Public 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 want sent on 11.04.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 17.04.2006 and the File was
submitted on 19.04.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on the same day i.e. on 19.04.2006 and
finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 20.04.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.05.2006 and the same was
sent to the detenu on 15.05.2006 and served to him on 18.05.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the
Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 20.04.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter
till 10.05.2006. 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 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.