KALA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by one Kala, wife of the alleged detenu Subban, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus setting aside the order of detention dated 23-1-1992 passed against the detenu and set him at liberty. The detenu came to the adverse notice as forest offender in view of the two cases referred to in the preamble of the grounds of detention and was detained on the basis of the grounds case by the District Magistrate and Collector of North Arcot, Ambedkar District at Vellore, the first respondent herein, in exercise of the powers conferred in sub-section (1) of section 3 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) with a view of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The details of the ground case which led to the passing of the order of detention were set out in the grounds of detention which was duly served on the detenu. Hence, in view of the limited plea taken in this writ petition, we do not propose to reiterate the same once again in this order. Though the writ petition was challenged on various grounds set out in the affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. Gopinath, confined his arguments to grounds Nos. (d) and (f). In ground No. (d), it is contended as Follows:

(2.) It is seen from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent that though the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 25-2-1992, the Government did not call for parawise remarks from the detaining authority and without calling for the parawise remarks, the file was submitted to the officers on 13-3-1992 and after consideration, the rejection order was passed on 17-3-1992. The point strenuously urged on behalf of the detenu was that when the detenu has raised various contentions in his representation challenging the order of detention, the State Government, namely, the Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department cannot summarily reject the representation in a casual and mechanical manner and that is not the proper consideration of the representation. Besides that, it was contended that the order is vitiated on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in rejecting the representation.

(3.) Since it is stated that in many cases the Government have disposed of the representations of various detenus without calling for parawise remarks from the concerned detaining authority, we proposed to deal with the same and give a finding on this question. Hence, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor to advance arguments on this question. Accordingly they advanced arguments. In John Martin v. State of W.B., three learned Judges of the apex Court held as follows: