In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 01/03/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1253 of 2005
Pilari .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary
Prohibition & Excise Department
Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate
Tiruvannamalai District
Tiruvannamalai. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr. V.R. Appaswamee
For respondents : Mr. Abudukumar Rajaratrhinam
Govt., Advocate (Crl.)
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,)
The petitioner by name Pilari, challenges the impugned
detention order dated 05.11.2005 passed against her husband Pavul, who was
detained as “Bootlegger” under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short
“Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982”).
2. Heard both sides.
3. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there is delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu
dated 18.11.2005. With regard to the same, learned Government advocate has
placed details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated
18.11.2005 was received by the Government on 21.11.2005; remarks were called
for on 22.11.2005; remarks received on 29.11.2005 and thereafter, file was
submitted on 30.11.2005. The Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary dealt
with the file on 30.11.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and
Excise passed orders on 01.12.20 05; rejection letter was prepared only on
07.12.2005; rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 09.12.2005 and served
to the detenu on 12 .12.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner by
drawing our attention viz., that though the Minister has passed an order on
01.12.200 5, there is no explanation for taking time by the Officers for
preparation of rejection letter till 07.12.2005 and according to him the
detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of un-explained delay.
4. The learned Government advocate has brought to our notice
that another representation dated 10.11.2005 was addressed to the District
Collector and the same was received by the Collector on 14.11.2005, after
receipt of the remarks from the Sponsoring Authority, the same was received by
the Government on 21.11.2005. If we consider the time taken by the
authorities with reference to the said representation, there is no undue delay
in disposal of the same. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as the representation dated 18.11.2005
was addressed to the Government, we treat the said representation as first
representation. Accordingly, in the absence of proper explanation by the
Officer concerned, even if we exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the
view that the time taken for preparation of rejection letter till 07.12.2005,
is on the higher side, which vitiates the ultimate order passed by the
detaining authority. On this ground, the order of detention impugned in the
petition is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other
case. It is made clear that we arrive such conclusion based on the peculiar
circumstances available to this case and this cannot be cited as precedent for
other case.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
To
1. The Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition & Excise Department
Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate
Tiruvannamalai District
Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Director General of Police
Chennai 4.
4. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Vellore.
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.