@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P.D. Dinakaran, J.@mdashThe order of detention dated 16.11.2007, clamped on the detenu by name Ramesh by the second respondent in
C3/D.O. No. 104/2007, branding him as a Bootlegger u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982), is being challenged in this writ petition by the friend of the detenu.
2. While shriveling for prohibition cases in the Upparapalli village, the Inspector of Police attached to Gudiyatham Taluk police station noticed the
detenu indulging in selling illicit arrack and on seeing the police party, when he attempted to escape, the police party encircled and arrested him. On
interrogation, the detenu admitted the offence and he was brought to the police station along with seized materials. A case in Crime No. 484 of
2007 for offences under Sections 4(1)i, 4(1)aaa, 4(1-A)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The detenu was, later, produced before the Court
for remanding him to judicial custody and the sample of arrack, when sent for chemical analysis, was found admixed with 6.1 mgms.% w/v of
atropine, which is a poisonous substance.
3. The detaining authority, taking note of the above ground case as well as four adverse cases of similar nature on the file of same police station,
viz. in Crime Nos. 705/2006, 930/2006, 259/2007 and 483/2007 and having come to the subjective satisfaction that there is a compelling
necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and
public health, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Bootlegger.
4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even though a representation dated 19.11.2007 was sent by the learned
Counsel on behalf of the detenu within the statutory period of twelve days, the detaining authority rejected the same only on 19.12.2007, viz., after
the lapse of the statutory period of twelve days, and such delay in exercising the power conferred on the detaining authority in the manner known
to law vitiates the detention order.
5. We heard the submissions of both sides and perused the materials produced before us.
6. Concededly, the detention order was passed on 16.11.2007 and a representation was made on behalf of the detenu on 19.11.2007 to the
detaining authority within the statutory period of twelve days. The detaining authority, however, passed an order of rejection, rejecting the
representation made on behalf of the detenu, only on 19.12.2007, viz., after the expiry of the statutory period of twelve days, and there is no
convincing explanation for the said delay in considering the representation made on behalf of the detenu. We are, therefore, of the considered
opinion that the delay in exercising the power conferred on the detaining authority in the manner known to law, vitiates the order of detention, for
want of jurisdiction.
For the aforesaid reason, we are inclined to allow this petition. The order of detention dated 16.11.2007 is quashed. The detenu is directed to be
set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
