BHARJANA Vs. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.R.Alagumani learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Neelakandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

(2.) Challenging the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.28/2019 dated 24.12.2019 passed by the second respondent, branding the detenu, namely, Kandhan @ Kandhasamy S/o Muthu, male aged about 38 years, as "Drug Offender" as contemplated under Section 3(1) ) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, his wife has filed this habeas corpus petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detention order impugned in this habeas corpus petition is liable to be set aside on two grounds. Firstly, there was no proper intimation of arrest of the detenu in the ground case. He would further submit that no details have been furnished particularly the cell number mentioned at paragraph 76 of the booklet, whether it belongs to the family members of the detenu or his relatives. It is also stated that the text of the SMS also not found in the booklet. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal , reported in AIR (1997) SC 610. Secondly, there is unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, which would vitiate the detention order. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another , reported in 1999 (1) SCC 417.