IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 03.07.2006 Coram:- The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN Habeas Corpus Petition No.386 of 2006 Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore. .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the order of detention made in C3.D.O.No.26/2006, dated 13.03.2006, on the file of the second respondent, quash the same and direct the respondent herein to produce the body of detenu by name Arul @ Arul Prakasam before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.UM Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Arul @ Arul Prakasam, who is detained as a ''Bootlegger" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 13.03.2006, challenges the same in this Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is enormous delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 22.03.2006 was received by the Government on 27.03.2006 and remarks were called for on 28.03.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 10.04.2006 and the File was submitted on 12.04.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary on 12.04.2006 and by the Deputy Secretary on 17.04.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 18.04.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.05.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 15.05.2006 and served to him on 18.05.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 18.04.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 10.05.2006. In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned even after excluding the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the time taken for preparation of rejection letter is on the higher side and we hold that the said delay has prejudiced the detenu in disposal of his representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention. 4. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar raa https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Vellore District Vellore. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore. (In duplicate for communication to detenu) 4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.UM.Ravichandran, Advocate Sr 28543 PV (CO) km/11.7. HCP. No.386 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/