B. GANGA DEVI Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME, PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, wife of the detenu, Baskaran, son of Ponnan, has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in No.C2/31662/2017 dated 09.11.2017, branding the detenu as a "Bootlegger" as contemplated under section 2[b] 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.) 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 14.12.2017. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 14.12.2017 has been received by the Government on 19.12.2017 and though the remarks were called on 19.12.2017 ; the said remarks were received only on 04.01.2018, after a delay of 16 days. He adds that though the file was submitted to the Under Secretary on the same day, i.e., on 04.01.2018, the Minster has dealt with the said file of the detenu only on 12.01.2018 with a further delay of 8 days and the rejection letter was prepared and sent to the detenu on 12.01.2018. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 8 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 16 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 .

(3.) Resisting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Government received the representation on 19.12.2017 and that was forwarded to the Detaining Authority, calling for remarks on 19.12.2017 ; but the remarks were received by the Government only on 04.01.2018 and ultimately, the representation was considered and rejected on 12.01.2018 and the result of the consideration was communicated to the detenue on 12.01.2018 itself. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is no inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenue and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.