PAUL MANICKAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC (SC) DEPARTMENT AND UNION OF INDIA REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been taken out to review the order dated 28.9.2000 made in H.C.P No. 860/2000 on the file of this Court.

(2.) ONE Ms. Rathnamala was ordered to be obtained by the orders of the first Respondent State Government, in G.O. No. S.R.I/300 -6/2000 dated 26.4.2000 as the first Respondent. State Government arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said Rathnamala is required to be detained as she had indulged in acts of smuggling and with a view to prevent her from indulging in such further smuggling activities the order of detention has been clamped against the detune . Challenging the said detention, the father of the detenu filed H.C.P. No. 860/2000. The Respondents entered appearance, filed their counter and this Court by order dated 28.9.2000. after considering the various contentions advanced, dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition. To review the said order, the present H.C.M.P. had been filed by the very same Petitioner. At the hearing of the Habeas Corpus Petition. Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel sought to contend that there is a delay in considering the representation, which delay renders the detention illegal. It was pointed out by the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel that no representation had been received by the Central Government and that therefore the contention is factually a misconception. Presumably accepting the contents of the counter. Mr. Kumar, learned senior counsel, did not pursue the said contention. This Division Bench also took the view that it is unnecessary to consider the said contention as in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent it had been specifically set out thus:

(3.) IN the light of the said factual stand taken obviously the counsel for the Petitioner did not pursue the contention though he addressed this point, we also considered that it is not necessary to deal with the said contention.