VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME, PROHIBITION & EXCISE(XVI) DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the detenu to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 22.08.2016 in 941/BCDFGISSSV/2016 against the detenu Virendra Kumar Matho, S/o Japsee Matho, male, aged 26 years and now he was confined at Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of detenu before this Hon'ble Court 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 30.09.2016 and remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on 30.09.2016. However, the remarks have been received by the Government only on 13.10.2016, after a delay of 12 days. He adds that the file was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 24.10.2016 and the rejection letter was communicated to the detenu on 25.10.2016. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 11 intervening holidays and there is a delay of 12 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, 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.