LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-299

PUSHPAVATHI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

Decided On March 09, 2018
PUSHPAVATHI Appellant
V/S
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, wife of detenu herein, has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in C.No.73/G/IS/2017 dated 01.12.2017, branding her husband as a "Drug Offender" as contemplated u/s.2[e] 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 01.12.2017, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

(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 13.12.2017. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 13.12.2017 has been received by the Government on 15.12.2017 ; the remarks were called on the same day. But the said remarks were received only on 28.12.2017, after a delay of 13 days. He adds that though the file was submitted to the Under Secretary on 29.12.2017, the Minister has dealt with the said file of the detenu only on 12.01.2018 with a further delay of 14 days and the rejection letter was prepared only on 18.12.2017 and sent to the detenu on the next day. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 10 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 17 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.