S SIVALINGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner detenu has been detained, in pursuance of the order dated 20.7.1997, passed by the second respondent in B.D.F.G.I.S.No.69/ 97, with a view to preventing the petitioner from indulging in activities which would be prejudi-cial to the public order and public health.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges that due to the influence of his brother Ramasamy, who is President of the local panchayat, he had been detained and by his activities, no public health or public order is affected. It is alleged that there is no evidence evidence or ground to prove that the petitioner is a bootlegger. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation made by the petitioner to the Governor on 22.9.1997 has not been properly considered. He also submitted that the representation of the petitioner was rejected mechanically. He relied on the decision in THEnmozhi v. Secretary to Govern-merit THEnmozhi v. Secretary to Govern-merit, (1996)2 L. W. (Crl.) 592 in support of his contentions.

(3.) ON the (acts and circumstances of the case on hand, the question remains to be seen is whether the representation of the petitioner was decided in time or not. As could be seen from the counter-affidavit, the representation of the petitioner dated 22.9.1997, was received by the detaining authority on 29.9.1997 and came to be decided on 3.10.1997, having 2.10.1997 as holiday. So it cannot be said that it was decided with non-application of mind and delay. ON this ground, the petition has to fail.