http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MRS. VENMATHI SELVAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/06/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI, J      Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.      The appellant  is the  wife of  one Selvam 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  Selvam  was  involved  in activities prejudicial  to the  maintenance 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.      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   received it  on 14.10.97. It was despatched to the Government  on 15.10.97.  It called  for remarks  of the detaining authority  on 17.10.97. The detaining authority in his turn  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  was rejected by the Government on 10.11.97. The State Government was required  to explain  how it  dealt 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 this Court  on 12.5.98  to the respondents to file a counter affidavit dealing  with the  contentions raised in the S.L.P the Government  has failed  to file  any counter and explain why it had 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

10.11.97. Though  the dely  is  not  long  it  has  remained unexplained. Though  the dely  by itself  is not  fatal  the delay which  remains unexplained  becomes  unreasonable.  In spite of  the this  well-settled legal  position  the  State Government has  failed to explain satisfactorily that it had dealt with  the 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 routine  manner. This  indifference of  the Government is the cause  for rendering  the  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  forth with  unless his  presence in jail is required in connection with some other case.