9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to detention order based on delay in dealing with representation and extraneous considerations in passing the order.
Delay in dealing with representation: The petitioner, wife of the detenu, challenged the detention order u/s 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, citing delay in dealing with the representation dated 11-5-1992. The representation was received by the State Government on 18-5-92 and rejected on 23-6-92, causing the detenu to claim the order should be quashed due to the delay. However, the Court found that the representation was promptly processed without any indifference or negligence, leading to the dismissal of this contention. Extraneous considerations in passing detention order: The grounds of detention highlighted the detenu's involvement in illicit felling of sandalwood trees, causing ecological harm and leading to anti-social behavior among tribals. The Court noted the detenu's past involvement in similar activities and upheld the detention order based on the opinion of the District Forest Officer. The detenu's argument that extraneous considerations influenced the order was countered by the Court, stating that even if such considerations existed, Section 5A of the Act addressed them, thereby upholding the validity of the detention order. Conclusion: The Court found no merit in the writ petition challenging the detention order and dismissed the same, upholding the legality of the detention based on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982.
|
