Judgment

KASLIWAL, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. All the above appeals by the State of Tamil Nadu and the District Magistrate and Collector, District Salem are directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 9-3-1992. Though these cases relate to three different detenus namely C. Subramani, A Vadivel alias Sundara Vadivel and M Selvam, but we are disposing of all the cases by one common order as the facts and grounds of challenge are almost identical.

3. The facts in brief are that five persons including the aforesaid three respondents joined together, agreed and conspired to sell Thinner as arrack by rendering the said Thinner containing methyl alcohol for human consumption and they agreed to share the huge profit. 7 persons died as a result of consuming liquor. Investigation conducted by the police officials clearly revealed that the respondents and their associates had been systematically indulging in manufacturing and sale of such illicit liquor thereby endangering human life and public health and as such acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The District Magistrate and Collector of Salem District passed an order of detention under Ss. 3(1) and 3 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 23-10-1991 for detention of the respondents. The detenus-respondents challenged their order of detention on several grounds, but the High Court quashed the order of detention simply on the ground that the representation submitted by the detenus dated 25-11-1991 was disposed of after long delay which remained unexplained and directed the respondents to be set at liberty. The State of Tamil Nadu and the District Magistrate, Salem have filed the above appeals challenging the order of the High Court.

4. The High Court in the impugned order has dealt with this question on the basis of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government itself according to which a representation was submitted by the detenu on 25-11-1991 which was received by the Government on 27-11-1991 through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem. Para wise remarks on the said representation were called for from the Government dated 28-11-1991. The para-wise remarks received by the Government on 5-12-1991 vide letter dated 3-12-1991. The Government examined the representation along with the parawise remarks and the connected file was submitted to officers on 10-12-1991. The Under Secretary to Government passed orders in the file on 10- 12-1991 and Deputy Secretary to Government passed orders in the file on 11-12-1991. The Secretary passed orders on 12-12-1991. The file was received in the Office of the Chief Minister on 13-12-1991. The Chief Minister passed orders on 21-12-1991 rejecting the request of the detenu. The rejection order was issued vide Government letter dated 23-12-1991 and it was served on the detenu on 27-12-1991.

5. While considering the above explanations submitted by the Government, the High Court took the view that there was no explanation for the delay of 6 days from 28-11-1991 to 5-12-1991. Even after receipt of the parawise remarks the connected file was submitted to the officers on 10-12-1991 .Though 7-12-1991 and 8-12-1991 are stated to be holidays, no reason was given for not putting up the file before the officers on 6-12-1991. Thus, there was a delay of 2 days. The High Court then observed that the file reached the Office of the Chief Minister on 13-12-1991 and the Chief Minister passed the orders only on 21-12-1991 rejecting the request and the rejection order was issued vide Government letter dated 23-12-1991 which was served on the detenus on 27-12-1991. The High Court thus found that there was no explanation for the delay of 8 days in the Office of the Chief Minister for passing the order of rejection of the representation. The High C