J INDIRA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife of the detenu who has been detained as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is the petitioner in the above Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions which are dealt with below.

(3.) LEARNED counsel contends that though there is no delay in the disposal of the first representation, the second representation has not been expeditiously disposed. We have seen the date particulars relating to the second representation dated 23. 6. 2004. The representation was received on 30. 6. 2004 and remarks from the Collectorate were called for on the very next day. The communication was received by the Collectorate on 5. 7. 2004 and on 6. 7. 2004, remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority. The sponsoring authority furnished the remarks on 8. 7. 2004 and sent by post to the Government and received by the Government on 15. 7. 2004. Thereafter, on consideration by the other authorities, the representation was rejected on 20. 7. 2004. Apart from the fact that the representation is a second representation and no fresh points have been raised, we also find that the representation has been disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Hence, we are unable to sustain the said contention.