VASANTHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Arumugam, 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 10. 10. 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 22. 10. 2005 was received by the Government on 26. 10. 2005 and remarks were called for on 28. 10. 2005. The said representation was received by the collectorate on 28. 10. 2005 and the parawar remarks were called for from the Sponsoring authority on 02. 11. 2005 and the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority on 23. 11. 2005 and the report was sent to the Government on 24. 11. 2005. The remarks were received by the Government on 25. 11. 2005. Thereafter, the File was submitted on the same date i. e. on 25. 11. 2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same date and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 28. 11. 2005. The rejection letter was prepared on 07. 12. 2005 and the same was sent to the detenu on 09. 12. 2005 and served to him on 12. 12. 2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the parawar remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 02. 11. 2005, the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority by the Collectorate only on 23. 11. 2005 and there is no explanation at all for sending the remarks to the Collectorate belatedly. In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned, 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.