(Order of the Court was delivered by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the first respondent in M.H.S.Condfl.No.96 of 2008 dated 24.06.2008, whereby the husband of the petitioner viz., Essakimuthu was ordered to be detained under 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 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to "Act 14 of 1982"), branding him as a "Boot - legger".
2. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also looked into all the materials available on record, including the detention order under challenge.
3. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu Essakimuthu was involved in two adverse cases in Crime Nos.138 to 140 of 2008 for the offences under Section 4(1)(g) altered into Section 4(1)(g)4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Crime Nos.141 to 143 of 2008 for the offences under
Section 4(1)(b) altered into 4(1)(b)4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act on the file of Veeravanallur Police Station and also in one ground case on the same police station Crime Nos.146 to 148 of 2008 for the offence under Section 4(1)(I)4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, the detaining authority, who looked into all the materials available on record, arrived its subjective satisfaction that the acts committed by the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and hence, in the interest of the public, he has to the termed as a "boot-legger" and got to be detained under Act 14 of 1982 and made the order, which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.
4. The order of detention was challenged mainly on the ground of delay that was caused in consideration of the representation made. Advancing the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the representation was made on 11.07.2008 and the same was received by the Government on 29.07.2008; remarks were called for on 30.07.2008. However, the remarks were received only on 22.08.2008 and that there was delay of 22 days, during which period there were only seven intervening public holidays. Even in the counter of the respondents, the inordinate delay has not been explained, which caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu and therefore, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.
5. This Court also heard the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and paid its anxious consideration to the submissions made.
6. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations of the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases and one ground case, the detention order came to be passed. The detention order under challenge would indicate that considering all the materials available on record, the authorities have recorded their subjective satisfaction that the detenu has committed acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore, he was termed as a "Boot-legger". However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation was made on 11.07.2008 and the same was received by the Government on 29.07.2008 and remarks were called for on 30.07.2008. A perusal of the materials available on record would go to show that the remarks were received only on 22.08.2008 after a reminder was made on 22.08.2008. All this would go to show that there was 22 days delay in considering the representation and there were only seven intervening holidays. The huge and inordinate delay in considering the representation has not been explained. It is clear that if any representation against the detention order is received by the detaining authority, it has got to be considered and order has to be passed without any delay. In the instant case, there was inordinate delay and no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming. No doubt, it would cause prejudice to the interest of the detenu. Thus, after going through all the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was inordinate and unexplained delay of 22 days, which would suffice to set aside the order of detention. Hence, the order of detention is made undone.
7. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 24.06.2008 in M.H.S.Condfl.No.96/2008 passed by the first respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence, in accordance with law, is required in connection with any other case.
Dpn/ -
To:
1. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.