@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P. Sathasivam, J.@mdashThe petitioner by name Balasubramaniam @ Balan, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 07.03.2005,
detaining him as ""Drug Offender"" u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short ""Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"").
2. Heard both sides.
3. At the foremost learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. With
regard to the same, learned Government Advocate has placed the details to show that the representation of the detenu dated 17.03.2005 was
received by the Government on 18.03.2005; remarks called for on 23.03.2005; remarks received on 28.03.2005; thereafter, file was submitted
on 29.03.2005, the file was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 29.03.2005; finally, the Minister for Prohibition and
Excise passed an order on 30.03.2005; rejection letter was prepared on 01.04.2005; rejection letter was sent to the Superintendent Central
prison for service on 01.04.2005 and the same was served on the detenu on 07.04.2005. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner claimed
that there is delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, on going through the details and by excluding the intervening public holidays, we
are of the view that time taken at every stage cannot be construed as delay on the part of the respondents. It is true that the rejection letter was
served to the detenu only on 07.04.2005, though the same was prepared as early as on 01.04.2005. The learned Government Advocate has
brought to our notice that the rejection letter prepared on 01.04.2005 was sent to the Superintendent, Central Prison for service on the same day,
i.e., on 01.04.2005, however, the said communication was received by the Superintendent, Central Prison only on 07.04.2005, for which the
respondents are no way responsible. We accept the said contention and we find there is no undue delay as claimed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that detenu''s relatives were not intimated regarding passing of the detention order.
Learned Government Advocate from the file stated that wife of the detenu, viz., Maniyammal was informed on 08.03.2005 itself. Accordingly, we
reject the above said contention also.
In the light of what is stated, we find no ground for interference; accordingly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
