- (1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the wife of the detenu, namely, Vinothkumar, aged 24 years, S/o Raja, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in BDFGISSV No.1294/2014 dated 17.09.2014, passed by the first Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a "Goonda", in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai -66, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.
(2.) EVEN though Mr.Ganesh Rajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds, in assailing the impugned order of detention, he confined his arguments only on the ground that there is unexplained delay in considering and disposing of the representation of the detenu, which would vitiate the impugned detention order.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 13.11.2014, has been received by the Government on 14.11.2014 and the remarks were called for on the same day. But, the remarks were received only on 13.01.2015, after a delay of 59 days. The learned counsel further submitted that the file was dealt with by the Under Secretary and by the Deputy Secretary on 19.01.2015 and the Minister has dealt with the said file on 13.02.2015 and the same was rejected on 16.02.2015 with a further delay of 25 days. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 26 intervening holidays and even after giving concession to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 58 days in considering the representation, which remains unexplained. The unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenue 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 vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 1 SCC 417. Per contra, Mr.C.Emalias, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of the representation of the detenu. It is contended that such a delay is not fatal to the impugned detention order, as the authorities concerned are dealing with the file right from the date of receipt of the representation.;