SURESH Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME, PROHIBITION & EXCISE (XVI) DEPARTMENT,; DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM DISTRICT, SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the brother-in-law of the detenu, namely, Babu, S/o Balakrishnan, aged 24 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in C.M.P.No.14/B.L.A/C2/2014 dated 05.09.2014 , 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, Salem, 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 Mr.D.Veerasekaran, 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 18.09.2014, has been received by the Government on 22.09.2014 and remarks were called for on 23.09.2014. But, the remarks were received only on 06.11.2014, after a delay of 43 days. The learned counsel further submitted that the though the file was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 07.11.2014, the Minister has dealt with the said file of the detenu only on 18.11.2014, with a further delay of 11 days and the rejection letter was prepared on 19.11.2014, It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 16 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 42 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 .