ABUDABEER AND LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for quashing the orders of detention dated 11-6-1987 passed against the detenus Kadhar Sultan and Prasad in these two writ petitions respectively and for setting them at liberty.

(2.) The only ground of attack against the orders of detention is the inordinate delay in passing the orders of detention. The incident which has given rise to these orders of detention has occurred on 16-1-1986, while the orders of detention have been passed on 11-6-1987, after a delay of 1 year, 4 months and 25 days. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed in both these writ petitions, the delay is sought to be explained thus:

(3.) A perusal of the explanation would show the lethargic and indifferent manner in which the matter has been pending with the Government as well as with the Customs Department. It is seen that investigation was over on 7-5-1986 when the statements were recorded from Thiru Dayalan and Thiru Kader Sultan. But the proposal for detaining the detenus were sent only on 8-9-1986, after a delay of 4 months. It is not know what happend in the Customs Department during these long and tedious four months. After the receipt of this proposal by the Government, communications have been sent from the Government to the Customs Authorities for clarification. We do not know what were the clarifications sought for and what were the replies sent thereto, But it is clear that the letter dated 3-10-1986 sent from the Secretariat has fetched a reply only on 4-11-1986. The papers had thus been sleeping in the Secretariat till 17-12-1986 for nearly 43 days before another letter emanated from the Secretariat to the Customs Department, for which a reply has been received on 9-3-1987, after a delay of 2 months and 22 days. A further letter has been sent on 22-5-1987, after more than two months to the Customs Department asking for copies and the copies have been received on 9-6-1987. It is seen that neither the Government nor the Customs Department has had any sense of time in the matter of dealing with such an important matter of detention of a person without trial. There is also nothing to show that the detaining authority took into consideration this inordinate delay before passing the impugned orders of detention. The inexplicable delay of over a year snaps the nexus between the incident and the orders of detention. The orders of detention cannot therefore, stand.