TMT KAVITHA Vs. STATE, REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE; COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Babu, who was detained as a 'Goonda" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 13.2.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is enormous delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 2 2.3.2006 was received by the Government on 23.3.2006 and remarks were called for on 24.3.2006. Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 30.3.2006 and the File was submitted on 31.3.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 3.4.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 10.4.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on the same day i.e. on 10.4.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 11.4.2006 and served to him on 12.4.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the file was dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 3.4.2006, Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed the order on 10.04.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for passing orders by the Minister for Prohibition and Excise till 10.4.2006. In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned even after excluding the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the time taken for passing orders by the Minister for Prohibition and Excise is on the higher side and we hold that the said delay has prejudiced the detenu in disposal of his representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.