CHINNAPONNUI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by name Chinnaponnu, who was detained as ' 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 04. 09. 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 unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation of the detenue, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With regard to the above contention, learned Government Advocate has placed certain details, which show that the representation of the detenue dated 24. 09. 2005 was received by the Government on 27. 09. 2005 and remarks were called for on the same date i. e. on 27. 09. 2005 and remarks were received by the Government on 05. 10. 2005. Thereafter, the file was submitted on 07. 10. 2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same date i. e. on 07. 10. 2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 10. 10. 2005. The rejection letter was prepared on 17. 10. 2005 and the same was sent to the detenue on 18. 10. 2005 and served to her on 20. 10. 2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 10. 10. 2005, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 17. 10. 2005. 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.