MURUGAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, namely, Janarthanan, aged 24 years, son of Murugan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.1157 of 2015, dated 2.11.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a Goonda , and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu and set him at liberty.

(2.) Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he 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 8.12.2015 and remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on 9.12.2015. However, the remarks have been received by the Government only on 22.12.2015, after a delay of 13 days. He adds that the file was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 11.1.2016 and the rejection letter was communicated to the detenu on 12.1.2016. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 4 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 9 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 Hon'ble 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 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.