S NAVANEETHAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N. Ananda Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Samuel Raj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(2.) THE order of the preventive detention of the detenu on the ground that he is a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is challenged by the mother of the detenu.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court, it was for the respondents to explain as to why there was unnecessary and undue delay between the period form 13.6.2006 to 26.6.2006. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that 17th, 18th, 24th and 25th of June, 2006, being Saturdays and Sundays, were holidays and therefore it cannot be said that there was any unnecessary delay. Even excluding these four days, there appears to be long gap of nine days. Since liberty of a person was involved, it was the bounden duty of the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of the representation without any unnecessary delay. As observed by the Supreme Court, the question is as to whether the concerned authorities have acted in due promptitude while considering the representation of a detenu, since his liberty was in question. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had not raised any specific contention in the habeas corpus petition regarding any unnecessary delay in disposal of the representation and therefore, the explanation has not been furnished. On going through the petition, we find that in Ground No. 8, the petitioner has raised the question that the representation dated 10.6.2006 had been filed but it had not been disposed of. Even otherwise, since it is the constitutional obligation on the part of the Detaining Authority to justify the order of detention, absence of any specific plea on this aspect may not be material. It is quite well known that even a simple letter from a detenu or a friend of detenu is also considered as a habeas corpus petition and when such petitions are entertained and numbered and notice is served on the detaining authorities, it is for the Detaining Authority to justify the order of detention by placing before the Court all relevant facts and circumstances.