C VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the wife of the detenu Uma Shankar has filed this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the detention of her husband on two grounds which were urged before us, viz., (1) delay in dealing with the representation dated 11-5-1992 and (2) extraneous considerations having weighed in passing the detention order. The impugned order of detention passed under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gundas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act (XIV of 1982), hereinafter called the Act, is question on the aforesaid two grounds. The detention order as well as the grounds of detention are dated 6th May, 1992. Before we deal with the grounds of challenge we may refer to some of the provisions of the Act which have relevance.

(2.) The Act was enacted with a view to provide for preventive detention of certain classes of offenders including forest offenders to prevent them from indulging in inter alia activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Section 2(a) defines the expression 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order'. Clause (iiA) thereof says that in the case of a forest-offender, 'when he is enaged or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a forest-offender, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order' he can be said to be acting prejudicially to maintenance of public order. The explanation to the definition clause is material and reads as under:

(3.) In the instant case the impugned order has been made under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. The grounds of detention show that the detenu was indulging in activities which amounted to offences under the relevant chapters of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 as amended from time to time and he was, therefore, a forest-offender within the meaning of Section 2(ee) of the Act. After his detention the detenu made a representation dated 11th May, 1992, against the impugned detention order. This representation was handed over to the Jail Authorities who forwarded the same to the State Government. The State Government received the representation on 18th May, 1992 and conveyed the rejection thereof on 23rd June, 1992 which was received by the detenu on 26th June, 1992. The learned counsel for the detenu, therefore, contends that an inordinately long delay had taken place in dealing with the representation and hence the detenu is entitled to have the detention order quashed. In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to the State Government, the manner in which the representation was dealt with after its receipt on 18-5-92 has been stated in detail. We have perused the stages through which the file containing the representation was processed and we find that the representation was dealt with promptly and there was no indifference, lethargy or negligence in dealing with the same. The file was not unnecessarily held up at any level but moved from level to level promptly. We are, therefore, satisfied that the explanation tendered by the Deputy Secretary in this behalf is acceptable and does not betray any lack of sense or urgency in dealing with the representation. We, therefore, do not see any merit in the first contention.