N KARNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by name Karnan, who was 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 25. 11. 200 5, challenges the same in this Petition.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate 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 Government Advocate has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 02. 01. 2006 was received by the Government on 04. 01. 2006 and remarks were called for on the same date i. e. on 04. 01. 2006. The said representation was received by the Collectorate also on 04. 01. 2006 and the parawar remarks were called for from the Sponsoring authority on 06. 01. 2006 and the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority on 13. 0 1. 2006 and the report was sent to the Government on 18. 01. 2006. The remarks were received by the Government on the same date i. e. on 18. 01. 2006. Thereafter, the File was submitted on 20. 01. 2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same date i. e. on 20. 01. 2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23. 01. 2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 30. 01. 2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 01. 0 2. 2006 and served to him on 02. 02. 2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the parawar remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 06. 01. 2006, the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority by the Collectorate only on 13. 01. 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 is on the higher side and the said delay has prejudiced the detenu in disposal of his representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.