PARVATHI Vs. STATE, REPRESENTED BY: THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. PERAMBALUR DISTRICT, PERAMBALUR,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein challenges the detention order slapped against her sister dabbing her to be a bootlegger. The order was passed on 15 - 12 -1998 by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Perambalur District at Perambalur. The Detaining Authority has relied on as many as four adverse cases and one ground case. The learned Counsel raised the following points in support of his challenge to the said detention order: -

(2.) WE need not consider all these grounds, since the petition is liable to be allowed on the first two grounds alone.

(3.) IT will be seen that the representation was received on 6th of January, 1999 by the State Government and was disposed of on 8th of January. There is nothing on record to refute the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no comments were invited from the Detaining Authority Perambalur. It will be seen unless those comments been invited, it would have been impossible for the State Government to reject or at any rate to deal with the representation as early as on 8th of January. Therefore, it is apparent that the representation was straightaway rejected within two days without having any comments from the concerned authority and perhaps, without there being any record. As if this is not sufficient, it is apparent that the representation was dealt with mechanically from the fact that even when no documents were ever invited or wanted by the detenu, a reply came to be given that the documents sought were already supplied or at least such documents were supplied to which the detenu would be entitled. This only shows that the rejection is absolutely mechanical and casual.