LATHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by name Latha, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 26. 10. 2005, detaining the detenu George, her husband as "goonda" under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short " Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982" ).

(2.) HEARD Mr. S. Swamidoss Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

(3.) AT the foremost, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu dated 14. 11. 2005. The particulars furnished by the learned government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 17. 11. 2005; remarks were called for on 18. 11. 2005; remarks were received by the Government on 21. 11. 2005; the file was submitted on 22. 11. 2005 and the same was dealt with by Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 22. 11. 2005. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 23. 11. 2005; rejection letter was prepared on 29. 11. 2005; rejection letter was sent to the detenu on the same day and served on the detenu on 30. 11. 2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out that though the Minister has disposed of the representation of the detenu even on 23. 11. 2005, the Officials are not justified in taking time till 29. 11. 20 05 for preparation of the rejection letter. It is seen that there were public holidays and if we exclude the intervening holidays, we are satisfied that three days which is normally permissible between two stages has not been exceeded. Accordingly, it cannot be claimed that there is undue delay as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.