JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in Cr.M.P.No.41/2021, dated 06.10.2021 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Murugan alias Parkili Murugan, son of Narayanan, aged about 55 years, now detained as "Drug Offender" at Trichy Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.)

R. Subramanian, J.

1. The Petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Murugan alias Parkili Murugan, Son of Narayanan, aged about 55 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.41/2021, dated 06.10.2021, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representations made by the petitioner were not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay with regard to the same.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition. He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 06.10.2021. The petitioner made a representation, dated 09.10.2021 and the same was received on 13.10.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority dated 13.10.2021 and the remarks were received on 29.10.2021. Thereafter, the Minister for Electricity P & E has dealt with the representation on 29.10.2021. Ultimately, the petitioner's representation was rejected on 26.11.2021. Thus, there is a delay of 17 days after excluding the Government Holidays of 10 days in considering the representation which remains unexplained.

6. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 (5) SCC 244, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the procedural safeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the Courts of law and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities undertaken by the detenu.

7. In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government, reported in 2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the unexplained delay of three days in disposal of the representation made on behalf of the detenu would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention.

8. In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the very detention illegal.

9. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an unexplained delay of 17 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

10. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.41/2021, dated 06.10.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Murugan alias Parkili Murugan, Son of Narayanan, aged about 55 years, is directed to b