A. RAJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the son of the detenue Malarkodi, branded as 'Bootlegger' in detention order in P.D.No.22/2014, dated 14.04.2014 by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur, the second respondent herein, has sought for a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) THE Detenue has come to the adverse notice of the police in three cases. The 1st adverse case and 3rd adverse case were registered against her in Cr.Nos.767/2013 and 132/2014 respectively under Section 4(1)(a) of TNP Act, 1937, on the file of Pattukkottai Prohibition Enforcement Wing. The 2nd adverse case was registered in Cr.No.05/2014 under Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1 -A) of TNP Act, 1937 @ 4(1)(a) of TNP Act, 1937 against her on the file of Adirampattinam Police Station. All the three adverse case ended in conviction, 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 04.03.2014 on the file of Adirampattinam Police Station in Crime No. 65 of 2014 under Sections 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1 -A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, in which he has been remanded. On being satisfied that the Detenue is habitually indulging in activities, affecting the public Order and public health, the Detaining Authority has clamped the Detention Order on the Detenue. 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 16.04.2014 was received by the Government on 21.04.2014 and remarks were called for, from the Detaining Authority on 22.04.2014. The remarks were received by the Government only on 02.05.2014. In between 22.04.2014 and 02.05.2014, there were 6 clear working days and 4 holidays. Deputy Secretary dealt with the file on 06.05.2014. The Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise, dealt with the file on 17.05.2014. Rejection letter was prepared on 20.05.2014 and served to the detenue on 23.05.2014. In between 06.05.2014 and 20.05.2014, there were 10 clear working days and 4 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.