MUTHU IRULAYI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. Alagumani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. P. Samuvelraj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents.

(2.) THE order of detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 on the allegation that the detenu is a "drug Offender" is being challenged by the wife of the detenu. Such an order of detention was passed on 19/3/2007. Even though several contentions have been raised, it is not necessary to deal with all the contentions as, in our opinion, the contention relating to non-disposal of the representation is acceptable.

(3.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the habeas corpus petition, it has been specifically asserted in ground No. (e) that a representation has been made and it has not been disposed of. Such representation is dated 25/6/2007. In such representation, the petitioner had specifically asked for furnishing of Tamil translations of three documents in English. In that representation, it is also indicated that the order of detention is not justified. In the counter affidavit, inspite of such ground, it has been stated in paragraph 11 as under.