GANESAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the son of the detenue, by name Anjalai, who was detained as 'bootlegger' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 12. 07. 2005, challenges the same in this Petition.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned government Advocate for the respondents.

(3.) AT the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in the disposal of the representation of the detenue dated 13. 08. 2005. With regard to the above contention, the learned government Advocate has placed certain details, which show that the representation of the detenue was received by the Government on 22. 08. 2005 and remarks were called for on 23. 08. 2005 and after reminder dated 28. 9. 2005, the remarks were received by the Government on 05. 10. 2005. Thereafter, the file was submitted on the same date i. e. on 5. 10. 2005 and the same was dealt with by the under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary also on the same date and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 06. 10. 2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 10. 10. 2005 and the same was sent to the detenue on the same date and served to her on 14. 10. 2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the government called for remarks as early as on 23. 08. 2005 from the collectorate/sponsoring authority, there is no explanation at all for taking time till 30. 09. 2005 for collection of materials at the hands of the sponsoring authority. In the absence of proper explanation by the person concerned even after excluding the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the time taken for collecting the materials is on the higher side and we hold that the said delay has prejudiced the detenue in disposal of her representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.