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

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the sister-in-law of the detenue by name Ilanjiam, 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 01.03.2006, 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 detenue, 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 detenue dated 12.03.2006 was received by the Government on 16.03.2006 and remarks were called for on 17.03.2006. Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 27.03.2006 and the File was submitted on 28.0 3.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary also on the same day i.e. on 28.03.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 29.03.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.04.2006 and the same was sent to the detenue on 12.04.2006 and served to her on 15.04.2006. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 29.03.2 006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 10.04.2006. 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 detenue in disposal of her representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.