AMULU Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE OF TAMIL NADU, HOME, PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu and she has filed this petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in BCDFGISSSV No. 60/2015 dated 09.07.2015, branding her husband as a "Bootlegger" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

(2.) Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he confined his arguments only to the ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu, dated 13.08.2015. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 13.08.2015, has been received by the Government on 18.08.2015 and remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on the next day i.e., on 19.08.2015; but, the remarks have been received by the Government only on 26.08.2015, after a delay of 7 days. He adds that though the file was dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 26.08.2015, the said file was dealt with by the Minister concerned only on 03.09.2015, with a further delay of 8 days and the rejection letter was prepared on 04.09.2015. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 4 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 11 days, 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 v/s. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in : (1999) 1 SCC 417.

(3.) Resisting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Government received the representation on 18.08.2015 and that was forwarded to the Detaining Authority, calling for remarks on 19.08.2015 and remarks were received by the Government on 26.08.2015 and ultimately, the representation was considered and rejected on 04.09.2015 and the result of the consideration was communicated to the detenu on 05.09.2015. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is no inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.