In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:11.07.2006 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN Habeas Corpus Petition No.417 of 2006 Kumar @ LIC Kumar @ Ravikumar .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore, Chennai 600 008. .. 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. C.C. Chellappan For respondents : Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public Prosecutor .. ORDER (Order of the Court was made by V. DHANAPALAN,J.) The petitioner by name Kumar @ LIC Kumar @ Ravikumar, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 04.03.2006, detaining him as "Immoral Traffic Offender" under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Heard both sides. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Even at the foremost the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was delay in considering the representation of the detenue, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the said claim the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed details, which show that the representation of the detenue dated 30.03.2006 was received by the Government on 31.03.2006 and remarks were called on 03.04.2006, remarks were received on 07.04.2006. After receipt of the remarks, the file was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 10.04.2006; order was passed by the Minister for Prohibition and Excise on 11.04.2006, rejection letter was prepared on 05.05.2006; the same was sent to the detenue on 05.05.2006 and the rejection letter was served on the detenue on 06.05.2006. As rightly pointed out though the Minister has passed an order on 11.04.2006, there is no explanation or reason for preparing the rejection letter till 05.05.2006. In the absence of any explanation, we hold that there is a delay between 11.04.2006 and 05.05.2006. On this ground, the impugned detention order is quashed; accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order of detention impugned in the petition is set aside and the detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Kh To 1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 3. The Inspector General of Prisons Chennai 2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The Superintendent Central Prison, Chennai. 5. The Inspector of Police Video Piracy CB CID Chennai. 6. The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu, Chennai 4. 7. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.C.C.Chellappan, Advocate SR 29725 PLI (CO) km/19.7. H.C.P.No.417 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/