Settu alias Arumugam vs The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and The District Magistrate and District Collector

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the son of the detenu by name Krishnan, 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 9.03.2006, 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 8 .04.2006 was received by the Government on 13.04.2006 and the remarks were called for on

17.04.2006. The representation of the detenu was received from the Government on 18.04.2006 and parawar remarks were called for from the

Sponsoring authority on 18.4.2006 and the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority on 09.05.2006 and report was sent to the

Government on 12.05.2006. In the mean time, the reminder was sent on 2.05.2006. The remarks were received on 17.5.2006 and the File was

submitted on the same day i.e. 17.05.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary also on the same day on 17.05 .2006 and by the

the Deputy Secretary on 22.05.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23.05.2006. The rejection letter was

prepared on 24.05.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 25.05.2006 and served to him on 27.5.2006. As rightly pointed out by the

learned Counsel for the petitioner, though parawar remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 18.4 .2006, the remarks were

received from the sponsoring authority by the Collectorate only on 09.05.2006 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 time taken for sending the remarks to the Collectorate 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.