PALANICHAMY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the husband of the detenue by name Saradha Devi, 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 07. 04. 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, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenue dated 21. 04. 2006 was received by the Government on 24. 04. 2006 and remarks were called for on 25. 04. 2006 and the reminder was sent on 05. 05. 2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on the same day i. e. on 05. 05. 2006 and the File was also sent on the dame day i. e. on 05. 05. 2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 09. 05. 2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23. 05. 2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 24. 05. 2006 and the same was sent to the detenue on 25. 05. 2006 and served to her on 27. 05. 2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Deputy Secretary dealt with the file on 09. 05. 2006, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order only on 23. 05. 2006 and there is no explanation at all for taking time for passing the order till 23. 05. 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 passing the order 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.