Read Time: 05 minutes

"Even if, it may not be a case of lethargy of the Competent Authority to consider the representation, the time period of over two months spent in doing so, cannot be countenanced. It does not require such a long time to examine the representation concerning preventive detention of the detenu....", observed the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

With this view, the top Court allowed an appeal filed by S Amutha, the wife of one Kalyanaodai Senthil against an order passed by the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, whereby the High Court rejected the writ petition challenging the detention order dated July 20, 2021 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate under the Tamil Nadu Act, 14/1982-Serving of Orders against Kalyanaodai Senthil @ Senthil, aged 53 years, who was then confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore.

A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar noted that the detention order did refer to the questionable activities of the detenu, which could have been good reason to detain him by way of preventive action.

However, the bench added, that the sole question sufficient to dispose of the appeal was whether the representation made by the detenu to the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department on July 30, 2021 had been considered by the appropriate authority with utmost despatch?

After perusing response filed before it, the Court was of the view that the explanation offered by the Competent Authority, who was called upon to decide the representation, to say the least, was unacceptable.

"For, in the matter of considering representation made against detention order, the Competent Authority is duty bound to do so with utmost despatch. The vague explanation of being pre-engaged with other official work for more than two months, cannot be countenanced in law. Notably, no details of the official work have been furnished, much less to indicate that it was relatively so urgent that the obligation to decide the representation against detention order with promptitude could wait for two months", noted the court.

In the present case, the representation dated July 30, 2021 was received in the office of the concerned Authority on August 18, 2021, and the Minister cleared the file finally on October 20, 2021.

Considering this timeline, the court held that the time period of over two months could not be countenanced.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order was set aside and the writ petition filed for quashing of the stated detention order was allowed.

"The detenu is directed to be set free forthwith, if not required in connection with any criminal case pending against him", ordered the bench.

Cause Title: S. AMUTHA v THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.