K SHANMUGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to an order of the first respondent dated 5.11.2007, whereby an order of detention was passed against the petitioner herein terming him as the COFEPOSA detenu.

(2.) THE affidavit in support of the petition is perused. THE Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 3 and also the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

(3.) THE learned Counsel would further add that a part of the documents were actually supplied to him at about 11.40 a.m. On 18.12.2007; that the matter was taken up by the Advisory Board on 19.12.2007, at about 3.00 p.m., and thus, no sufficient time was given to him for making a representation effective because there was paucity of time; that apart from that, voluminous documents were actually served upon him by 5.40 p.m.; that those documents were not requested by the petitioner either, or those documents were actually not given with any covering letter indicating the purpose for which they were actually served upon him; but, it was not done; that only those documents were served and that too at the fag end of the day, and when the Advisory Board was to have its enquiry on the next day; that he could not even understand the purpose for which it was served; that he was under confusion; that he could not make effective representation, and thus, the valuable right available to him to make representation was actually violated and rather, he was prevented from making effective representation.