AMSAVENI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the mother of the detenu questioning the order of detention passed by the second respondent-District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal dated 21.12.2002 by virtue of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootlegger, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with G.O.Ms.No.221 Prohibition and Excise Department dated 18.10.2003 issued under Section 3(2) of the Act treating the detenu as a GOONDA.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents and perused the records of the case.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at the outset that the delay in the disposal of the representations made by the petitioner as well as the detenu to the Government on 21.1.2003 and 22.1.2003 respectively has not been properly explained for the simple reason that even though the rejection order was passed by the Government on 13.2.2003, the same had been served on the detenu after six days delay only on 18.2.2003. Further he has placed reliance on the decision RAJAMMAL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER (1999 (I) S.C.C. 417) in support of such contention. It is seen from the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.990 of 2002 dated 3.10.2002 in the said case also as in this case exactly six days delay had been there from the date of rejection of the representation to the date of service of such rejection order on the detenu and therefore it is held that such delay of six days is sufficient enough to quash the detention order. Further it is seen there from that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in 1999 (I) S.C.C. 417 has been followed in reiterating the proposition of law on this aspect of the matter. Following the ratio laid down therein, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order herein has to be quashed on this ground alone.