PANDIKALA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to petitioner's husband's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 10.08.2016 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings in No. 873/BCDFGISSSV/2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenu before this court and thereafter set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Puzhal.

(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 29.08.2016 and remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on 29.08.2016. However, the remarks have been received by the Government only on 06.09.2016, after a delay of 06 days. He adds that the file was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 13.10.2016 and the rejection letter was communicated to the detenu on 14.10.2016. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 16 intervening holidays and there is a delay of 26 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 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.