G SARASAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, P.Ganesan, aged 43 years, son of Pongadaiyaan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.79/D.O/2014/E1, dated 9.8.2014, 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 "Immoral Traffic Offender", in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu and 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 one ground, namely, 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 25.8.2014, has been received by the Government on 26.08.2014 and remarks were called for on the next day on 27.8.2014. But, the remarks were received only on 18.9.2014, after a delay of 21 days. The learned counsel further submitted that though the Deputy Secretary concerned had dealt with the representation made on behalf of the detenu, on 19.9.2014, the Minister has dealt with the said file of the detenu on 25.9.2014 with a further delay of 5 days and the rejection letter was prepared on 26.9.2014. It is his further submission that there were 9 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 17 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, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.