JAYAPAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ petition is filed by one Jayapal, Brother of the detenue Rajendran, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to quash the Order of the second respondent, the District Magistrate and Collector, Salem, dated 10.2.1992 and setting the detenu at liberty. The detenu came to adverse notice as a Bootlegger in view of the two cases referred in the preamble of the impugned order and he was detained on the basis of the ground case by the District Magistrate and Collector, Salem, the second respondent herein, in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), hereinafter referred to as Act, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order.

(2.) Though the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.V. Bakthavatchalam, challenged the order on many grounds, he confined his arguments only to ground No. V at page 3 of the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, wherein it is stated that the representation sent by the detenu and his relatives dated 26.2.1992 was not considered and placed before the Advisory Board and there is inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu and his men, which renders the detention invalid. It is to be noted that though the writ petition was admitted on 3.3.1992, the respondents entered appearance on 30.3.1992 and time has been granted from that date for filing counter, till this date no counter, affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents and, the averments, stated in support of the ground, stand unrebutted.

(3.) However, we proposed to hear the Additional Public Prosecutor with reference to the file which he is having. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after perusing the file, would submit that the allegation that the representation was not placed before the Advisory Board is not correct and it has been duly presented and reference is made by the Advisory Board. But he fully conceded that the representation dated 26.2.1992 sent by the detenu has not been disposed of till this date.