Unexplained delay in considering the representation of a detenu vitiates the detention order, rendering it impermissible and illegal.

C.T. Selvam, J.

1. Petitioner, son of the detenu herein, has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.741/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 23.11.2017, branding her son as a "Goonda” as contemplated u/s. 2[f] of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

2. As per the grounds of detention dated 23.11.2017, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

Adverse Case:

Sl No.	Name of the Police station and Crime No.	Section of law
1	P1 Pulianthope PS Cr.No.1485/2017	457, 380 IPC
2	P1 Pulianthope PS Cr.No.1567/2017	457, 380 IPC
3	P1 Pulianthope PS Cr.No.1579/2017	341, 294[b], 323, 392, 336, 397, 506[ii] IPC
4	P1 Pulianthope PS Cr.No.1849/2017	457, 380 IPC
5	P2 Otteri PS Cr.No.1886/2017	454, 380 IPC

Ground Case:

Sl No.	Name of the Police station and Crime No.	Section of law
1	P2 Otteri PS No.1901/2017	341, 294[b], 323, 336, 392, 397, 506[ii] IPC read with 3[1] TNPPDL Act

3. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he confined his arguments only to the ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu, dated 14.12.2017. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 14.12.2017, has been received by the Government on 18.12.2017; the remarks were called on the same day, i.e., 18.12.2017. But the said remarks were received only on 29.12.2017, after a delay of 11 days. He adds that though the file was submitted to the Under Secretary on 29.12.2017, the Minister has dealt with the said file of the detenu only on 12.01.2018 with a further delay of 14 days and the rejection letter was prepared only on 12.01.2018 and sent to the detenu on the same day. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 8 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 17 days in considering the representation, which remains unexplained. The unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenu vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.

4. Resisting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Government received the representation on 18.12.2017 and that was forwarded to the Detaining Authority, calling for remarks on the same day itself and remarks were received by the Government on 29.12.2017 and ultimately, the representation was considered and rejected on 12.01.2018 and the result of the consideration was communicated to the detenue on 12.01.2018 itself. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is no inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenue and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. We have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to facts and citation and perused the materials available on record.

6. As per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the representation of the detenu, dated 14.12.2017 which was received by the Government on 18.12.2017, remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on the same day it