(1.) Petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in C3/D.O.No.116/2017 dated 03.11.2017.
(2.) The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu on 05.10.2017, by the Walajapet Police Station, in Crime No.541 of 2017 for offences under Sections 379,430,353 and 307 I.P.C r/w Section 21(5) Mines and Minierals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present Habeas Corpus petition has been filed.
(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 08.12.2017. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 08.12.2017 has been received by the Government on 11.12.2017; the remarks were called and received on 26.12.2017, after a delay of 15 days. He adds that though the file was submitted to the Under Secretary on the next day, i.e., on 27.12.2017, the Minister has dealt with the said file of the detenu only on 12.01.2018, with a further delay of 16 days and the rejection letter was prepared and sent to the detenu on the same day. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 12 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 23 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 v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417 .