NALLAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the main writ as well as the writ miscellaneous petition is the wife of the detenu, Manickam, who was lodged at the time of filing of the writ petition in the Central Ex-Prison, Salem, in pursuance of the order of detention made by the second respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, XIV of 1982, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The detenu was detained as a bootlegger.

(2.) The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 18-11-1987 and notice was ordered to the respondents. The docket entries show that on 25-4-1988 this Court directed filing of the counter by the respondents by 14-6-1988. On 29-11-1988 on the request of the counsel for the petitioner, the hearing was adjourned by two weeks. Again on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 9-1-1989 the hearing was adjourned by two weeks. By efflux of time the order of detention dated 14-10-1987 had worked itself out and it appears that the detenu had been released on 14-10-1988. The main writ petition, therefore, becomes infructuous.

(3.) However, on 23-1-1989, the wife of the detenu has filed W.M.P. No. 2229 of 1989 praying for directions to the first respondent the Tamil Nadu Government to pay full, fair and adequate compensation and the costs of the application in view of the suffering of the petitioner (Nallamal) the wife of the detenu and her family members, and the detenu, R. Manickam, and to set aside his illegal detention to remove the stigma as goonda and pass such other ancillary orders as may be deemed fit. In the affidavit filed in support of this prayer in the writ miscellaneous petition, it is averred that the writ petition was admitted on 18-11-1987 by this Court and notice was issued to the respondents. Time was afforded to the respondents to file a counter by 14-6-1988, but no counter was filed till the release of the detenu on 14-10-1988. The second respondent had wantonly and leisurely filed the counter-affidavit only on 29-11-1988 after signing it on 18-10-1988 knowing the fact of the release of the detenu on 14-10-1988. The act of the second respondent is stated to be one of wilful disobedience to the notice issued by this Court. Expeditious reply is contemplated not only for considering the representations but also with regard to the notice issued by this Court. It is further stated that if the detenu is refused of his opportunity to have justice rendered to him by delaying tactics by the detaining authorities, such an act would be unconstitutional necessitating declaring the detention as illegal. The further contents of the affidavit disclose that the detention has caused extreme mental torture and physical sufferings to the family members of the detenu, who were all dependent on him, which would entitled the detenu for substantial compensation. Since the wilful disobedience or negligence had caused the detenu's detention for the full period, which has been termed as illegal, the detenu must be awarded the costs of the application.