SANGEETHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Vinoth @ Vinoth Kumar, son of Magendiran, 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 15. 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 26. 12. 2005 was received by the Government on 27. 12. 2005 and remarks were called for on 28. 12. 2005. The said representation was received by the Collectorate on 02. 01. 2006 and the parawar remarks were called for from the Sponsoring authority on 04. 01. 2006 and the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority on the same date i. e. on 04. 01. 2006 and the report were received by the Government only on 2 3. 01. 2006. Thereafter, the File was submitted on 24. 01. 2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 25. 01. 2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 25. 01. 2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 30. 01. 2 006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 31. 01. 2006 and served to him on 02. 02. 2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Collectorate received remarks from sponsoring authority on 04. 01. 2006, the same were sent to Government only on 23. 01. 2006 and there is no explanation at all for sending the report to the Government belatedly. 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 sending the remarks is on the higher side and the said delay has prejudiced the detenu in disposal of his representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.