E MUNIAPPA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The daughter-in-law of the petitioner's sister by name Rajamma has been 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 24.12.2005, and the petitioner 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 detenue dated 15.02.2006 was received by the Government on 17.02.2006 and remarks were called for from the Government on the same day i.e. on 17.02.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 01.03.2006 and the File was submitted on 02.03.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on the same day i.e. on 0 2.03.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 03.03.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 08.03.2 006 and the same was sent to the detenu on the same day i.e. on 08.03 .2006 and served to him on 13.03.2006. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 03.03.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 0 8.03.2006. 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.