CHENDRAN Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed by one Chendran, father of the detenu Ganesan, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to quash the order dated 19/12/1991 of the Second Respondent, the Collector and District Magistrate, Salem District, and setting the detenu at liberty. The detenu came to adverse notice as a Bootlegger in view of the four cases referred to in the preamble of the impugned order and he was detained on the basic or the ground case by the Collector and District Magistrate, Salem District, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 (1) or the Tamil Nadu prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 44 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, the confined his arguments only to ground No. VII at page 3 of his affidavit filed in support of the petition, wherein it is stated that the delay in forwarding the representation of the detenu and the delay in considering the representation of the petitioner to first respondent, renders continued detention illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner had produced the order, of rejection passed by the Government dated 17/3/1992. It is to be noted though the Writ petition was admitted on 17/3/1992 and the respondents entered appearance on 30/3/1992, till this date, inspite of number of adjournments, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of any of the respondent and averments stated in the ground, stand unrebutted. 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 fill, would submit that the representation of the detenu was received on 18/2/1992 and para war remarks received on 11/3/1992 and the representation was disposed on, 17/3/1992. There is no explanation for the delay from 18/2/1992 to 11/3/1992 and subsequent delay from 11/3/1992 to 17/3/1992 in disposing of the representation.

(3.) In view of the admitted delay on the part of the respondents and that the delay of more than 27 days is inordinate and unexplained, we have no hesitation in holding that the, impugned order of detention is vitiated on the ground and violative the safeguard provided under Article 22 (5) of the, Constitution of India,.