R MOHANA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT; COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Raghu @ Raghunathan, who was 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 20.12.2005, 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 03.01.2006 was received by the Government on 09.01.2006 and remarks were called for on 10.01.2006. Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 13.01.2006 and the File was submitted on 16.01.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on the same date i.e. on 16.01.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 17.01.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 30.01.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 31 .01.2006 and served to him on 01.02.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 17.01.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 30.01.2006. In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned even after excluding the intervening holidays(21.01.2006, 22.01.20 06, 26.01.2006, 28.01.2006 and 29.01.2006), 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.