SUNDARAMMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, namely, Karuppasamy, age 39/2014, branded as 'Boot -legger' in detention order in M.H.S. Confdl. No. 15/2014, dated 14.03.2014 by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli -9, has sought for a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) THE Detenu has come to the adverse notice of the police in two cases. The first adverse case was registered in Cr. No. 125/2012 on the file of Kuruvikulam Police Station, under Section 4(1)(A) Tamilnadu Prohibition Act. The second adverse cases was registered against him in Crime No. 129/2013 under Section 4(1)(A) Tamilnadu Prohibition Act on the file of Vasudevanallur Prohibition Enforcement Wing. The two adverse case are pending trial, when the order of detention was passed. The order of detention was passed on the basis of the ground case alleged to have registered on 14.01.2014 on the file of Kuruvikulam Police Station in Crime No. 12 of 2014 under Section 4(1)(A)(aaa) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and 465, 468 and 484 IPC. On being satisfied that the Detenu is habitually indulging in activities, affecting the public Order and Public Health, the Detaining Authority has clamped the Detention Order on the Detenu. At paragraph 6, the Detaining Authority has concluded as follows:

(3.) ON a perusal of the Proforma produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we find that the representation dated 07.04.2014 was received by the Government on 08.04.2014. The remarks were called for, by the Detaining Authority, on 08.04.2014 and the remarks were received by the Government on 08.04.2014. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the file on 10.04.2014. But, the Ministry for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise, dealt with the same only on 21.04.2014 In between 10.04.2014 and 21.04.2014, there were 5 clear working days and 6 holidays. Further, rejection letter was prepared only on 28.04.2014. In between 21.04.2014 and 28.04.2014, there were 4 clear working days and 3 holidays. There is delay in considering the representation, during the relevant period, at two stages, which has not been properly explained. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions on the aspect of delay.