The delay in considering the representation can vitiate a preventive detention order, and must be decided qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records connected with the order of the second respondent herein in CPT No.47/2022 dated 23.08.2022 passed against the petitioner''s husband the detenu namely Thiyagu, son of Arumugam, aged about 28 years as a Bootlegger who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 23.08.2022 bearing reference CPT No.47/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.

2. Impugned detention order has been made under ''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 No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Bootlegger'' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There is one adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.563 of 2022 on the file of Madhuranthagam Prohibition Enforcement Wing for alleged offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 read with Rules 6 and 11 of Tamil Nadu Rectified Spirit Rules, 2000 (Transporting). Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr.A.Murugavel, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel, for all respondents are before us.

5. Learned State Additional Public Prosecutor has placed before us a list of dates, which reads as follows:

Govt. Holidays Falls on

17.09.2022, 18.09.2022, 24.09.2022, 25.09.2022''

6. We find that even if the intervening four public/Government holidays 17.09.2022, 18.09.2022, 24.09.2022 and 25.09.2022 are excluded there is not less than nine days delay in considering the representation. We make it clear that the delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively. It has to be decided qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances and the trajectory the representation has taken, in other words, it has to be decided on case to case basis. In the case on hand, we adopt such an approach and we find that nine days delay vitiates the impugned detention order. We hasten to make it clear that there can be no straight jacket formula in terms of number of days delay as regards this point is concerned and therefore this order will not serve as precedent in all and every case.

7. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 23.08.2022 bearing reference CPT No.47/2022 made by the second respondent is set