ANSAYE Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 2nd Respondent in P.D.No.18/2012, dated 01.05.2012, branding her husband as a "Goonda" and ordering his detention at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, under Section 3(1) of 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 of 1982). The detenu has been termed as a Goonda on the ground that he is involved in seven adverse cases and in one ground case.

(2.) EVEN though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised so many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention, he confined his arguments to the only one ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu, dated 18.05.2012. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 18.05.2012, has been received by the Government on 22.05.2012 and remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on the next day, i.e. 23.05.2012 but, however, remarks have been received by the Government only on 05.06.2012, after a delay 13 days. It is his further submission that though, as per the proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were four intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervened holidays, still there is a delay of 9 days, which remains unexplained and the unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenu vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.

(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.