KUGAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, brother mother of the detenu herein, viz., Karthiekeyan @ Karthik, son of Kumaravel, aged 30 years, has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.634/BCDFGISSSV/2017, dated 14.10.2017, branding his brother as a "Goonda" as contemplated under section 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.) 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 30.10.2017. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 30.10.2017 has been received by the Government on 21.11.2017 ; the remarks were called on the next day. But the said remarks were received only on 27.11.2017, after a delay of 5 days. He adds that though the file was submitted to the Under Secretary on the next day, i.e., on 28.11.2017, the Minster has dealt with the said file of the detenu only on 14.12.2017, with a further delay of 16 days and the rejection letter was prepared on 18.12.2017 and sent to the detenu on 19.12.2017. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 6 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 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 21.11.2017 and that was forwarded to the Detaining Authority, calling for remarks on the next day itself and remarks were received by the Government on 27.11.2017 and ultimately, the representation was considered and rejected on 18.12.2017 and the result of the consideration was communicated to the detenue on 19.12.2017 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.