Unexplained delay in considering the representation vitiates the detention order.

1. Petitioner, the detenu herein, has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.688/BCDFGISSSV/2017, dated 04.11.2017, branding him 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. 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 30.11.2017. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 30.11.2017 has been received by the Government on 01.12.2017 ; the remarks were called on the same day. But the said remarks were received only on 06.12.2017, after a delay of 6 days. He adds that though the file was submitted to the Under Secretary on the next day, i.e., on 07.12.2017, the Minster has dealt with the said file of the detenu only on 15.12.2017, with a further delay of 8 days and the rejection letter was prepared and sent to the detenu on 18.12.2017. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 4 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 10 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.

3. Resisting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Government received the representation on 01.12.2017 and that was forwarded to the Detaining Authority, calling for remarks on the same day itself and remarks were received by the Government on 06.12.2017 and ultimately, the representation was considered and rejected on 18.12.2017 and the result of the consideration was communicated to the detenue on 18.12.2017 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.

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

5. As per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the representation of the detenu, dated 30.11.2017 which was received by the Government on 01.12.2017, remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on the same day itself, i.e., on 01.12.2017. But, remarks have been received by the Government only on 06.12.2017 and the case of the detenue was dealt with by the Minister only on 15.12.2017, i.e., after a total delay of 14 days and thereafter, the representation has been considered by the authorities concerned and rejected on 18.12.2017 and the Rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 18.12.2017. From the above, it is clear that in between 01.12.2017 and 06.12.2017 [period between remarks called for and remarks received], there is a delay of 6 days and in between 07.12.2017 and 15.12.2017 [i.e., the period between the file submitted to the Department concerned and dealing of the same by the Minister], there is a further delay of 8 days. Even if we give concession to the 4 intervening holidays, namely 02.12.2017 ; 03.12.2017 ; 09.12.2017 and 10.12.2017, still there is a delay of 10 days, which remain unexplained.

6. It is trite law that the representation should be very expeditiously considered and disposed of with a