Sridevi vs The District Magistrate and District Collector, The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department and The Superintendent, Central Prison

V. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Seeman, 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 14.02.2006, 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 8.03.2006 was received by the Government on the same day i.e. on 08.0 3.2006 and remarks were

called for on 09.03.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 15.03.2006 and the File was submitted on 17.03.2006 and the

same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 20.03.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed

orders on 21.03.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.04.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on the same day i.e. on 10.04.2006

and served to him on 13.04.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise

passed an order on 21.03.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 10.04.2006. 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.