@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P. Sathasivam, J.@mdashThe petitioner, by name Murugan @ Nondi Murugan, who is detained as a ''''Goonda"" as contemplated u/s 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, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 27.12.2005, challenges the same in
this Petition.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was delay in passing the impugned detention order. While
elaborating the said contention, the learned Counsel has pointed out that though the detenu was arrested on 18.11.2005 in respect of the ground
case alleged to have taken place on 17.11.2005, the detention order was passed only on 27.12.2005. In the absence of proper explanation, the
detention order cannot be sustained.
4. As against the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that apart from the ground case, the detenu has nine adverse cases to
his credit and he has also pointed out that the ground case and the nine adverse cases spread over in various places viz., Chengalpattu,
Thirukalukundram, Cheyyur, Chunambedu, Kalpakkam, Sadras and Padalam. In view of the number of cases viz., 9 and of the fact that he has
committed theft in several domestic shops, pawn brokers shop, it is the case of the respondents that the sponsoring authority had to spend more
time to collect the materials from all the places. In such circumstances, we accept the explanation offered by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and reject the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
5. The Tamil version of the remand extension order dated 02.12.2005 and 16.12.2005 were not supplied to the detenu. The learned Additional
Public Prosecutor by placing the records submitted that on the basis of the request of the detenu, the said copies were supplied to the detenu on
04.05.2006. We have also verified the records and we are satisfied that the relevant copies were supplied to the detenu.
6. Finally, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is enormous delay in disposal of the representation dated
06.04.2006 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 was received by the Government on 18.04.2006 and remarks were called
for on 20.04.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 27.04.2006 and the File was submitted on 28.04.2006 and the same
was dealt with by the Under Secretary on 28.04.2006 and by the Deputy Secretary on 02.05.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and
Excise passed orders on 03.05.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.05.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 12.05.2006 and
served to him on 16.05.2006. The learned Counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the fact that the Minister for prohibition and
Excise passed order on 03.05.2006 submitted that the officials are not justified in taking time till 10.05.2006 for preparing the rejection letter. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor has brought to our notice that 06.05.2006 and 07.05.2006 were holidays being Saturday and Sunday and
08.05.2006 being declared as holiday due to general election and if we exclude the three public holidays, we are satisfied that there was no let up
or undue delay in consideration of the representation of the detenu. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.
7. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order of detention. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails
and the same is dismissed.
