PUNITHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife of the detenu is the petitioner in this petition. THE detenu by name Murugesan was detained as a bootlegger as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 pursuant to the impugned order of detention dated 30.10.2001 passed by the second respondent herein.

(2.) THE said impugned order of detention was challenged by the learned counsel for petitioner on the following grounds: (i) THE petitioner sent a pre-detention representation dated 12.10.2001 and the same was not considered by the detaining authority. (ii) THE detenu moved bail application before the Sessions Court, Chennai on 12.10.2001 and the same was dismissed on 19.10.2001. Hence, the statement made by the detaining authority in paragraph 5(ii) of the grounds of detention that the detenu has not filed any bail application so far is an incorrect statement and as such, the impugned order of detention is vitiated on the ground of non application of mind. (iii) THE detenu applied for bail before this Court and the bail was granted on 31.10.2001. THE said fact was not placed before the Advisory Board. (iv) THE detenu made a representation on 30.11.2001 which was rejected only on 26.12.2001. Hence, there is a delay in the disposal of the representation and the said delay vitiates the impugned order of detention.

(3.) LASTLY coming to the ground of delay, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor furnished the following particulars. The representation of the detenu dated 30.11.2001 was received by the first respondent on 4.12.2001. On 7.12.2001, the file was circulated. The Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary as well as the Secretary signed the file on 10.12.2001 and the Hon'ble Minister rejected the representation on 14.12.2001. Thereafter, the draft order was prepared and communicated to the detenu. From the above furnished particulars, we do not find any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation made on behalf of the detenu. Hence, we reject the said contention also.