PAAPA NAGARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the detention order TPDA No.2120 dated 29.10.2006 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenue Paapa Nagarajan and set her at liberty.) Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) THE order of detention on the ground that the detenue is Slum Grabber within the meaning of Act 14 of 1982 is in question. Even though several contentions have been raised, it is not necessary to deal with all such contentions as the contention relating to non-application of mind while considering the representation of the detenue is acceptable. From the materials available on record, it appears that the order of detention was passed on 28.10.2006 and a representation was made on behalf of the detenue through the jail authorities on 03.11.2006, which received by the detaining authority on 06.11.2006. It further appears that the detaining authority rejected the said representation on 08.11.2006 and on the same day, the Government also passed an order relating to approval of the order of detention. Subsequently, remarks were called for and representation along with other papers were forwarded to the Government. However, the Government rejected the representation on 30.11.2006 only on the ground that the Collector had already rejected the representation. Even though the Collector had jurisdiction to deal with the representation before such approval is made, it is the duty of the Government to consider any representation. In the present case, the representation was also addressed to the Government and therefore, the Government had the duty to consider the said representation independently and they should not have rejected such representation merely on the ground that the detaining authority had already rejected the representation. This would amount to non-application of mind while considering the representation. THE detention order is, therefore liable to be quashed.