PALTHANGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the cousin of the detenu by name Elumban karthik @ Karthik, who was detained as a ''goonda" 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 198 2), by the impugned detention order dated 07. 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 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 was received by the Government on 26. 09. 2005 and remarks were called for on 27. 09. 200 5. After the reminder, the remarks were received by the Government on 28. 09. 2005. Thereafter, the File was submitted on 29. 09. 2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary on the same date i. e. on 29. 09. 2005 and by the Deputy Secretary on 30. 09. 2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on the same date i. e. 30. 09. 2005. The rejection letter was prepared on 10. 10. 2005 and the same was sent to the detenu on 13. 10. 2005 and served to him 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 30. 09. 2005, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 10. 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 detenu in disposal of his representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.