KALAISELVI Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Kumar, son of Elumalai, aged 39 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in BDFGISSV No. 76/2014 dated 7.9.2014, 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 "Bootlegger", 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 22.9.2014, has been received by the Government on 26.9.2014 and remarks were called for on 29.9.2014; the remarks were received only on 10.10.2014, i.e. after a delay of 10 days. The learned counsel further submitted that though the file of the detenu was submitted to the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 13.10.2014, the Minister for Electricity and Prohibition and Excise has dealt with the said file of the detenu only on 24.10.2014, i.e. after a delay of 10 days. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 6 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 14 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 v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in : (1999) 1 SCC 417.