MURUGAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, father of detenu herein, has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in D.O.No.46/2017-C2 dated 23.11.2017, branding his son 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 23.11.2017, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: Ground Case: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1081_LAWS(MAD)3_2018_1.html</FRM>

(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 12.12.2017. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 12.12.2017 has been received by the Government on 04.01.2017; the remarks were called on the same day. But the said remarks were received only on 17.01.2018, after a delay of 13 days. He adds that though the file was submitted to the Under Secretary on 18.01.2018, the Minister has dealt with the said file of the detenu only on 22.01.2018 with a further delay of 4 days and the rejection letter was prepared only on 12.01.2018 and sent to the detenu on the same day. 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 9 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.