Case: Rajappa Neelakantan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others

e detention actually commenced on9 and it is for a period of one year. We are told that presently the detenu is on parole and the parole is being extended by orders of this CourtThe detention order was passed in the following background : the petitioner arrived at Anna International Airport on9 in the company of one Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran. The petitioner was an Assistant Public Relations Officer attached to the Department of Tourism under the Government of Tamil Nadu. On suspicion, the petitioner and hisr Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran were intercepted and on search 102 mobile phones were detected from the baggage of the petitioner alone and from the baggage of hisThe preventive detention order was passed against Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran. We may mention now that the said order was challenged in this Court but we did not interfere with the said order as per the judgment of this Court dated

Reasoning: We cannot appreciate the said contention for two reasons. First is that the detention order in respect of the present petitioner should be based principally on the facts centred on what he had done in collaboration with his. In other words, if the detention order and the connected records relating to ther were to be placed before the detaining authority there could possibly be an apprehension that the detaining authority would be biased against the petitioner because of the various allegations contained therein. Second is that the detaining authority cannot be said to be totally ignorant of the fact that Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran was also detained under a separate order, for, the aforesaid detention order against Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran was passed by the same detaining authority just six days prior to the impugned detention order. So we do not see much force in the said ground raised nowWhile dealing with the second ground we initially thought that the petitioner has really a case to put forward because at the first blush it may appear that there was delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of the representation made by the detenu. We may point out that the representation to the Central Government was actually made by the detenu on9 and the same was disposed of by the Central Government only on. No doubt there was delay. It is not the law that whenever there is any delay the detention order would be vitiated. The law is that the delay should not be unexplainable and that the explanation offered must appear to the court to be reasonable and acceptableIn the present case the representation sent by the detenu to the Central Government onWe are inclined to accept the said explanation for the intervening period between 6th and 9th September for the representation to reach the COFEPOSA Unit. We may note here that there can possibly be no grievance that the order of disposal made on9 was vitiated by delay subsequent to. We, therefore, hold that the grievance regarding delay in disposing of the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government is not valid in the circumstances of this caseWhile elaborating the third ground, i.e., want of compelling necessity to preventively detain the petitioner,Shri K. K. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently stated that when ther was preventively detained there was no need to detain the petitioner separately as he had only accompanied him.On the other hand, Shri V. R. Reddy, learned Senior Counsel arguing for the State of Tamil Nadu pointed out the broad features surrounding the catch made at the airport on. This was not the only occasion when the petitioner travelled to Singapore and the surrounding place. On a previous occasion also the petitioner had gone up to those places. It is pertinent to point out that on the previous occasion also the petitioner had gone to some places with the same. On the second occasion when he came back with all the contraband articles it was for the detaining authority to subjectively satisfy whether this petitioner had acquired the wherewithal to continue with the nefarious activities.Considering the fact that the petitioner is a Public Relations Officer attached to the Tourism Department we cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he should be treated at a lesser degree than hisr so far as the formation of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is concerned