CHINNAKANNU Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Arulkumar, S/o Selvaraj, Male, aged about 30 years, who has been branded as Sand Offender by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.34/2020 dated 13.03.2020, as contemplated under Section 2(gg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

(2.) Though several grounds have been raised challenging the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent, dated 13.03.2020, Mr.T.Leninkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated and there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner and on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.V.Neelakandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would argue that the detaining authority, namely, the second respondent herein, after being satisfied with the cogent materials produced by the sponsoring authority, has passed the detention order only to prevent the detenu from indulging in similar offence in future, which would prejudice to the maintenance of the public order. He would further state that the delay, if any, in considering the representation would not cause any prejudice to the detenu and there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order of detention passed by the second respondent. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.