PUNITHA Vs. STATE REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, (HOME), PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, wife of the detenu herein, viz., Suruttaiyan @ Prabhakaran, son of Mani @ Angamuthu, aged 32 years, has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in CMP.No.11/Goonda/2017/M1, dated 24.10.2017, branding him as a "Goonda" as contemplated u/s.2[f] of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

(2.) As per the grounds of detention dated 24.10.2017, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_688_LAWS(MAD)2_2018_1.html</FRM>

(3.) 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, dated Nil. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation has been received by the Government on 01.12.2017 ; the remarks were called on the same day. But the said remarks were received only on 20.12.2017, after a delay of 19 days. He adds that though the file was submitted to the Under Secretary on the next day, i.e., on 21.12.2017, and though the Minster has dealt with the said file of the detenu only on 22.12.2017, the rejection letter was prepared only on 27.12.2017 and sent to the detenu on 27.12.2017, with a further delay of 5 days. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 9 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 15 days in considering the representation, 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.