NAGAJOTHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in C.No. 53/G/IS/2016 dated 30.10.2015.

(2.) Even though the petitioner has raised many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, the learned counsel confined his arguments only to the ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation of the detenu, has been received by the Government on 22.04.2016 and remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on 25.04.2016. However, the remarks have been received by the Government only on 05.05.2016, after a delay of 12 days. He adds that the file was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 18.05.2016 and the rejection letter was communicated to the detenu on 23.05.2016. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 2 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 8 days, which remains unexplained. The unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenu vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.

(3.) Resisting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 had submitted that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had further submitted that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of the representation of the detenu. It is contended that such a delay is not fatal to the impugned detention order, as the authorities concerned are dealing with the file right from the date of receipt of the representation and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.