SARAVANAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu by name Senthil @ Vellai Senthil, who is 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 14. 11. 2005, 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, Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the remarks were received by the Government on 16. 05. 2006, the same were submitted for orders only on 22. 05. 2006. According to the learned counsel, the time taken for mere placing the file before the appropriate officer, cannot be sustained. In such circumstances, according to him, the disposal of the representation cannot be treated as a proper disposal and in that way, the detenu is prejudiced. We verified the particulars furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 03. 04. 2006 was received by the Government on 09. 05. 2006 and remarks were called for on 10. 05. 2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 16. 05. 2006 and the File was submitted on 22. 05. 2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day i. e. on 22. 05. 2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23. 05. 2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 24. 05. 2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 25. 05. 2006 and served to him on 26. 05. 2006. Though this court is not appreciating the time taken by the Officers in placing remarks along with the representation before the appropriate authority, in view of the fact that in between 16. 05. 2006 and 22. 05. 2006, two holidays viz. , Saturday and Sunday were intervened, we are of the view that the time taken by them for submitting the papers before the authority cannot be said to be excessive or beyond the permissible limit of three days. Accordingly, we reject the above contention.