MRS VENMATHI SELVAMversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

A                          MRS VENMA THI SEL VAM
                                         v.
                     STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

                                  JUNE 10, !998

B              [G.T. NANAVATI ANDS. SAGHIRAHMAD. JJ.]


          Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers. Drug
    Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum
C   Grabbers Act, 1982-Preventive Detention -Representation made by the
    detenu-Delay by Government in considering it - Delay, though short, not
    explained--Unexplained delay is unreasonable-- Continued detention due
    to indifference of the authorities, is illegal-Detention order set aside.

         The Commissioner of Police passed an order detaining appellant's
D   husband under the 1982 Act The High Court rejected the appellant's petition.
    Hence this appeal.

         Allowing the appeal, this Court

          HELD : I. The detenu had made a representation on 7.10.97. The State
E   Government was required to explain how it dealt with the representation
    between 15.10.97 and 10.11.97. Except stating that it called for the remarks
    of the detaining authority on 17.10.97 the Government has failed to explain
    why it had become necessary for it to call for the remarks of the detaining
    authority. Even after an opportunity was given by the Court on 12.5.98 to the
    respondents to file a counter affidavit dealing with the contentions raised in
F   the S.L.P. the Government has failed to file any counter and explain why it
    has called for the remarks of the detaining authority and what was the
    reason for not taking up for consideration the representation of the detenu
    from 21.10.97 till 10.11.97. Though the delay is not long it has remained
    unexplained. Though the delay by itself is not fatal the delay which remains
G   unexplained becomes unreasonable. In spite of well-settled legal position the
    State Government has failed to explain sati~factorily that is had dealt with
    the representation of the detenu as promptly as possible. It appears that
    oblivious of the correct legal position and its obligations in matters of
    preventive detention it has dealt with the representation of the detenu in a
    routine manner. This indifference of the Government is the cause for
H   rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal.(527-F-H; 528-A-C)
                                         526
                        V. SELVAMv. STATEOFT.N. [NANA VAT!, J)                      527
              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 629                   A
    .   of 1998 .

              From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.98 of the Madras High Court
        in H.C.P. No. 998of1997.

              K.K. Mani for the Appellant.                                                B
              M."N. Krishnamani, T. Raja and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondents.

              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

              NANA VATI, J Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.          c
               The appellant is the wife of one Sclvam who has been detained as a
        Goonda under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
        Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and
        Slum Grabbers Act, 1982. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, on being
        satisfied that Sclvam was involved in activities prejudicial to the maintenance   D
        of public order and with a view to preventing him from acting in the said
    ~
        prejudicial manner it was necessary to detain him, passed an order of detention
        on 23.8.97.

             The appellant challenged that order before the High Court of Judicature
        at Madras but her petition failed. She has, therefore filed this appeal.           E

               What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there
        was unreasonable delay on the part of the Government in considering the
        detenu's representation and, therefore, his continued detention is illegal. The
        detenu had made a representation on 7.10.97. The Governor's Secretariat
                                                                                            F
    •   received it on 14.10.97. It was despatched to the Government on 15.10.97. lt
        cailed for remarks of the detaining authority on I 7.10.97. The detaining authority


-       in his tum called for remarks of the sponsoring authority on 21.10.97. The
        sponsoring authority gave its remarks on 24.10.97 and they were forwarded
        by the Commissioner of Police to the Government on 28.10.97. The
        representation was rejected by the Government on 10. I 1.97. The State G
        Government was required to explain how it dealt with the representation
        between 15.10.97 and 10.11.97. Except stating that it called for the remarks of
        the detaining authority on 17.10.97 the Government has failed to explain why
        it had become necessary for it to call for the remarks of the detaining autl)qrity.
        Even after an opportunity was given by this Court on 12.5.98 to the
        respondents to file a counter affidavit dealing with the contentions raised in H
    528                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1998]3S.C.R.

A the S.L.P the Government has failed to file an) counter and cxplai.n why it had
    called for the remarb of the detaining authority and what was the reason for
    not taking up for con~ideration the represer.tation of the detenu from 21.10. 97
    till 10.11.97. Though the delay is not long. it has remained unexplained.
    Though the delay by itself is not fatal the delay which remains unexplained
B   becomes unreasonablt:. In spite of the this well-settled iegal position the State
    Government has faikd to explain satisfactorily that it had dealt with the           \l-
    representation to the detenu as promptly as possible. It appears that oblivious
    of the correct legal position and its obligations in matters of preventive
    detention it has dealt with the representation of the detenu in a routine
    manner. This indifference of the Government is the cause for rendering the
C   continued detention of the detenu illegaL We, therefore, allow this appeal,
    quash and set aside the impugned order of detention and direct that the
    detenu be released forthwith unless his presence in jail is required in
    connection with some other case.

    !.M.A.                                                         Appeal allowed.




                                                                                        -