MURUGESAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the son of the detenue by name Kaliyammal, challenges the impugned detention order dated 28. 02. 2005, branding the detenue as 'bootlegger' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 ).

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and connected records, has raised the following contentions,

(3.) IN so far as the first contention, namely, delay in disposal of the representation, particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenue was received by the Government on 31. 3. 2005, remarks were called for on 01. 04. 2005, remarks were received on 12. 04. 2005, File was submitted on 13. 4. 2005, the same was dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 13. 04. 2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 15. 04. 2005. Rejection letter was prepared on 18. 04. 2005. The said letter was sent to the detenue on 19. 04. 2005 and served to her on 21. 04. 2005. According to the counsel for petitioner, though the Government had called for the remarks even as early as on 01. 04. 2005, the same were supplied to the Government only on 12. 04. 2005, which according to him is abnormal. Learned Government Advocate has also furnished details regarding the time taken by the Collectorate and the Sponsoring Authority. On going through the details furnished, we are satisfied that there is no undue delay as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.