Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4478 (MAD)

Kanimozhi v. Government of Tamil Nadu

2008-12-02

R.REGUPATHI, R.SUBBIAH

body2008
Ratio: When the representation sent for the detenu is rejected, rejection should be communicated to detenu without unnecessary delay. Failure would vitiate the detention order. R.REGUPATHI J:- Daughter of the detenue challenges the order of detention dated 31.03.2008, detaining her mother as 'Boot-Legger' as contemplated 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. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was much delay in considering the representation dated 09.04.2008 sent by the detenue to the Detaining Authority, thereby, the order of detention is vitiated. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor furnished the particulars about the movement of File and submitted that the representation dated 09.04.2008 was received by the Government on 10.04.2008; remarks were called for on the next day and received on 24.04.2008; the File placed before the Section Officer was dealt with by him on 28.04.2008 and by the Under Secretary and Additional Secretary on 29.04.2008; the Minister for Public Works and Law disposed of the representation on 30.04.2008; and the rejection letter prepared on 07.05.2008 was sent to the detenue on 09.05.2008. 4. We have perused the materials available on record and carefully considered the submissions made on either side. 5. We find that even though the Minister for Public Works and Law disposed of the representation on 30.04.2008, the rejection letter was sent to the detenue only on 09.05.2008. Even if the intervening holidays namely, 01.05.2008, 03.05.2008 and 04.05.2008, are excluded, yet, there is inordinate delay in preparing the rejection letter, for which, there is no explanation forthcoming. Thus, we are of the view that definitely such delay has prejudiced the detenue, affecting her constitutional right; therefore, we have no other option but to set aside the impugned detention order. 6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention passed by the second respondent in P.D.No.14/2008, dated 31.03.2008 is set aside. The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.