THAMEEM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the friend of the detenu herein, viz., Balasubramaniyam, son of Arumugam, aged 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.566/2017, dated 16.09.2017, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

(3.) Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.