SAGAYARAJ Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPT , CHENNAI-9 ; COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CHENNAI ; INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M3 PUZHAL POLICE STATION, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the uncle of the detenu, namely, Danial, son of Arokiyadass, aged 23 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Memo No.1315/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 19.9.2014, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a "Goonda", in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu and to set him at liberty forthwith.

(2.) Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds, in assailing the impugned order of detention, he confined his arguments only on the ground that there is unexplained delay in considering and disposing of the representation of the detenu, which would vitiate the impugned detention order.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 14.10.2014, has been received by the Government on 20.10.2014 and remarks were called for on the same day; however, the remarks were received only on 9.12.2014, i.e. after a delay of 49 days. The learned counsel further submitted that though the file of the detenu was submitted to the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 9.12.2014, and the same having been dealt with by them on 10.12.2014, the Minister for Electricity & Prohibition and Excise had dealt with the said file of the detenu only on 16.12.2014, i.e. after a delay of 5 days. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 18 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 36 days in considering the representation, which remains unexplained. The unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenu vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 1 SCC 417.