CHINNAPONNU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DISTRICT TIRUCHIRAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner questions the validity of the detention order on the ground that there was unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the authorities in disposing of the representation. In particular, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that representation was given on 10.8.2001, received by the detaining authority on 13.8.2001 and remarks were called on 14.8.2001. But, however, the remarks were received on 5.9.2001 only after 21 days. THE learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission places reliance on the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Ahamed Nassar v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, JT 1999 (8) SC 252 as well as Rukmani v. District Collector and District Magistrate, Karur District and another, 1999 (1) LW (Crl.) 195

(2.) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, inter alia would contend that the representation was sent to the sponsoring authority who examined the same and sent his remarks to the detaining authority. THE detaining authority in turn forwarded the same to the Government. In these circumstances, according to the Prosecutor the time taken cannot be said to be long or unreasonable.