CHITHRA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the mother of the detenu, namely, Rajkumar, Son of Palanisamy, aged 22 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Cr.M.P. No. 32/G/2014/E1 dated 12.08.2014, 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, Coimbatore, and quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.

(2.) EVEN though, Mr.J.Ganesh, 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.) PER contra, Mr.C.Emalias, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of the representation of the detenu. It is contended that such a delay is not fatal to the impugned detention order, as the authorities concerned are dealing with the file right from the date of receipt of the representation.