H. PEER MOHAMMED Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, brother of the detenu herein, has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in D.O.No.48/2017-C2 dated 26.11.2017, 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.) As per the grounds of detention dated 26.11.2017, 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 02.01.2018. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 02.01.2018, has been received by the Government on 02.01.2018 ; the remarks were called on the same day, i.e., 02.01.2018. But the said remarks were received only on 09.01.2018, after a delay of 7 days. He adds that though the file was submitted to the Under Secretary on 09.01.2018, the Minister has dealt with the said file of the detenu only on 12.01.2018, with a further delay of 3 days and the rejection letter was prepared on 12.01.2018 and sent to the detenu. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 2 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 10 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 .