MALAYALAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Malayalam has been detained as a bootlegger under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in pursuance of an order of detention dated

(2.) 10. 1993, passed by the second respondent district Magistrate and Collector, tiruchirapalli, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. 2. It will be totally unnecessary to state the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order, for this habeas corpus petition, will have to be allowed on the short ground of long and unexplained delay in the disposal of representation forwarded by the detenu to the State government.

(3.) IT will be pertinent to notice the observations of a single Judge of the Delhi High Court, in Dhiraj Singh Madan v. Union of India, 1993 Crl. L. J. 514, which clearly pinpoints our intended view. Those observations read as hereunder: "it is a settled principle of law that repeated representations cannot be considered expeditiously and with due promptitude provided they are based on the same facts and same cause of action. But if new facts are brought on record and new grounds are alleged then it would amount to fresh representation. IT would not amount to repeated representation. A fresh representation is required to be considered as expeditiously and with due promptitude as the first representation is required to be considered under art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. "