BABU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by name Babu, who is detained as a ''Bootlegger" as contemplated under Section 3(1) of 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 27.06.2006, 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 28.07.2006 was received by the Government on 31.07.2006 and remarks were called for on 01.08.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 07.08.2006 and the File was submitted on 08.08.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary on the same day i.e on 08.08.2006 and by the Deputy Secretary on 09.08.2006 and finally, the Minister for Revenue and Law passed orders on 11.08.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 18.08.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on the same day i.e. on 18.08.2006 and served to him on 19.08.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Revenue and Law passed an order on 11.08.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 18.08.2006. 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 preparation of rejection letter 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.