KAVITHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 31.07.2012, made in P.D. No. 36/2012, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Ponnusami, son of Kuppusami, aged about 31 years, confined in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and to set him at liberty. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, dated 31.07.2012, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), read with the order issued by the State Government, in G.O. (D) No. 143, Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2012, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of Velpandi, in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, terming him as a 'Goonda'.

(2.) Even though various grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in the present Habeas Corpus petition, while challenging the impugned detention order, dated 31.7.2012, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the said detention order, is liable to be set aside, merely on the ground of delay in the disposal of the representation, dated 23.08.2012, made on behalf of the detenu.

(3.) It has also been pointed out that the representation made on behalf of the detenu, dated 23.8.2012, was received, on 29.08.2012, and the remarks were called for, on 31.08.2012. The remarks had been received, only on 12.09.2012, after a delay of 12 days, out of which 4 days i.e. 01.9.2012, 02.9.2012, 08.09.2012 and 09.09.2012 were government holidays. As such, there has been an actual delay of 8 days in dealing with the representation made on behalf of the detenu. The learned counsel also further pointed that the delay has been admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents at Paragraph No. 5.