P. SIVAKAMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, who has been detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), has come forward to file this Writ Petition to quash the detention order, dated 27.04.2012, issued by Respondent No.2.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the detention order is liable to be quashed, as there is an unexplained delay of six days, in considering the representation of the detenu, between the period when the file was initially dealt with by the Under Secretary on 18.05.2012 and the rejection letter was prepared on 28.05.2012. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 have been violated, inasmuch as the documents pertaining to the detention order have been served on the detenu, after the period of five days from the date of detention order. Yet another submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the detention order is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. In the absence of any bail application pending, there is no apprehension warranting passing of the detention order on the ground that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and if he comes out on bail, he would cause hindrance to maintenance of public order. Finally, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the similar case in which bail was granted and relied upon by the detaining authority, namely Respondent No.2, from which he has come to the conclusion that the detenu would come out on bail in the ground case, has got no relevancy as the offences involved in the said case is totally different from that of the present case and therefore even on this ground of non-application of mind also the detention order is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments.

(3.) A perusal of the records would show that the file relating to the representation of the detenu has been circulated to the Deputy Secretary to the Government on 18.05.2012 and thereafter it has been sent to the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity and P & E, on 23.05.2012. After the file was dealt with by the Hon'ble Minister concerned, rejection letter was prepared only on 28.05.2012. There is absolutely no explanation in the counter affidavit filed for the delay of three days on each occasion, even after excluding the intervened Government Holidays. Therefore, we are of the view that on the ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu, the detention order is liable to be set aside, as held by this Court in Tharmarvs. State of Tamil Nadu - (2012) 1 MLJ (Crl) 602, cited supra.