(1.) The petitioner is the husband of the detenue and he challenges the order of detention dated 30.01.2002 passed by the first respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, detaining his wife, after she was identified as a bootlegger, since she had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on earlier occasions and that on 16.1.2002, she acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and that if she is let to remain at large, she will indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and therefore, there is a compelling necessity to detain her under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
(2.) We do not propose to extract the entire details of the grounds of detention, since both the sides have agreed that it is not necessary, as the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not questioned and the petition has to be considered only on a short ground.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is delay in considering the representation of the detenu by the authorities. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the file produced by him. It can be seen from the file that the representation dated 4.2.2002 was received by the Government on 25.2.2002. The file was circulated on 4.3.2002 and it was perused by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on the same day. The Minister for Prohibition and Excise perused the file on 5.3.2002 and the order of rejection was passed on 6.3.2002 and thereafter, it was served on the detenu on 9.3.2002. The dates extracted above show that there is no delay in considering the representation and it was under the active and continuous consideration of the Government. Therefore, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner fails. No other ground is urged before us.