THANGARASU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the friend of the detenu by name Ponniyin Selvan, who is detained as a ''Bootlegger" 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 04.05.2006, 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 17.05.2006 was received by the Government on 20.06.2006 and the remarks were called for on 22.06.2006. The representation of the detenu was received from the Government by the Collectorate on 26.06.2006 and parawar remarks were called for from the Sponsoring authority on 27.06.2006 and the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority on 04.07.2006 and report was sent to the Government on 05.07.2006. In the mean time, the remarks were received by the Government on 10.07.2006 and the File was submitted on 11.07.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary also on the same day on 11.07.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 14.07.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 18.07.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 19.07.2006 and served to him on 21.07.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though parawar remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 27.06.2006, the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority by the Collectorate only on 04.07.2006 and there is no explanation at all for sending the remarks to the Collectorate belatedly. 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 sending the remarks to the Collectorate 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.