(Order of the Court was made by P.MURGESEN, J) Challenging the order of the detention, the father of the detenu has filed the petition. The detenu was detained by the first respondent District Collector by his detention order in M.H.S. Confdl. No.34/2009 dated 07.03.2009, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) terming him as a "Goonda".
2. The detenu was involved in four adverse cases, which are as follows:-
Apart from that, the detenu was involved in one ground case in Crime No.25/2009 under
Sections 294(b),341,392,307 and
506(ii) IPC registered in Palavoor Police Station for the incident that took place on 13.02.2009.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent is vitiated on two grounds. The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority's satisfaction about the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is not established. It is settled law that there must be some material to hold that there is possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. In the detention order the detaining authority has averred that "I am aware that Thiru. Kannan has not moved any bail application in Panagudi Police Station Crime Number 466/2008, Panagudi Police Station Crime Number 488/2008, Eruvadi Police Station Crime Number 4/2009 and Panagudi Police Station Crime Number 43/2009. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application for the above case since in a similar cases bails are granted by the concerned court or higher courts." There must be satisfactory and acceptable materials on record to enable the detaining authority to arrive at the conclusion that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing another bail application. We perused the materials carefully and meticulously and the respondent is unable to say any ground or material to show that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is based on any material. Absolutely, there is no material to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. So, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is not correct. Hence, the order of detention is liable to be set aside on this ground.
4. The second ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is delay in considering the representation. In the proforma filed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is stated as follows:
1. Category : GOONDA 2. Name of the detenu : Thiru.Kannan S/o.Thiru.Subramania thevar
3. Order of Detention dated : 34/2009, dated 07/03/2009
4. District/City : Tirunelveli District.
5.Representation dated : 15.04.2009
6.Representation received on : 21.04.2009
7.Remarks called for on : 22.04.2009
8.Reminder dated : --
9.Remarks received on : 27.04.2009 10.File Submitted on : 28.04.2009
11.Under Secretary dealt with on : 28.04.2009
12.Addl. Secretary dealt with on : 28.04.2009
13.Minister for (PWD & Law) dealt with on : 30.04.2009
14.Rejection letter prepared on : 18.05.2009
15.Rejection letter send to the detenu : 20.05.2009
16.Rejection letter served to the detenu on : 22.05.2009 It is seen that the Minister for Public Works and Law dealt with the representation on 30.04.2009, the rejection letter was prepared on 18.05.2009 and the rejection letter was sent on 20.05.2009. Hence, there is an inordinate unexplained delay in preparing the rejection letter. It vitiates the order of detention. Hence, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.
6.Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl. No.34/2009 dated 07.03.2009, passed by the first respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
sj To
1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
2.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai - 9.
3.The Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.