Shanthi vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

V. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Murugan @ Manusan, who is detained as a ''''Bootlegger"" as

contemplated under V 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

27.03.2006, 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 0 5.03.2006 was received by the Government on 06.04.2006 and remarks were called for on

07.04.2006 and reminder was sent on 18.04.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on the same day i.e. on 1 8.04.2006 and

the File was also submitted on the same day i.e. on 18.04.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary 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 12.05.2006 and served to him on 17.05.2006. 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 10.05.200 6. 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.