The parawise remarks were received by the Government on 5.12.1991 vide letter dated 3.12.1991.
1027/1991.
Only on investigation and the companyfessional statement given by the petitioner and his associates, it came to light that petitioner and his associates are involved in Cr.
Hence, the number furnishing of documents relating to Cr.
This Court in the above circumstances held that the Superintendent of Central Prison, Bombay had callously ignored and kept the representation in companyd storage, unattended for a period of 7 days, and as a result of that, the representation reached the Government 11 days after it was handed over to the Jail Superintendent.
The Government examined the representation along with the parawise remarks and the companynected file was submitted to officers on 10.12.1991.
In Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaiks case supra , the Superintendent of Central Prison of Bombay to whom the representation was handed over by the detenu on June, 16, 1988 for mere onward transmission to the Central Government took a period of 7 days.
1027/1991 was registered against one Selvam and Ponnuswami and the said Ponnuswami has died.
As regards the second period, it was submitted that the file was received in the Office of the Chief Minister on Friday, the 13th December, 1991, 14th and 15th were Saturday and Sunday.
Parawise remarks on the said representation were called for from the District Magistrate by a letter issued by the Government dated 28.11.1991.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
1027/1991.
Report sent by the District Magistrate and Collector, Salem District on the basis of the parawise remarks to the State Government.
Thus, there was a delay of 2 days.
While companysidering the above explanations submitted by the Government, the High Court took the view that there was numberexplanation for the delay of 6 days from 28.11.1991 to 5.12.1991.
The Secretary passed orders on 12.12.1991.
The appellants have given the chronology of the dates in dealing with the representation as under 28.11.1991 Parawise remarks called for from the District Magistrate and Collector, Salem District by the State Government.
The file was received in the Office of the Chief Minister on 13.12.1991.
The Chief Minister passed orders on 21.12.1991 rejecting the request of the detenu.
The rejection order was issued vide Government letter dated 23.12.1991 and it was served on the detenu on 27.12.1991.
The District Magistrate then sent the report on the basis of parawise remarks to the State Government 3.12.1991.
It was also pointed out that on 19th December, 1991, the Chief Minister was busy in an official function of the University and thereafter the Chief Minister had passed the order rejecting the representation on 21.12.1991 itself though, the same was Saturday.
22nd December, 1991 was Sunday and orders were issued by the Government on 23.12.1991 The chronology of the events dealing with the representation as mentioned above clearly show that there was numberdelay at all in dealing with the representation leading to an inference of any supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in companysidering the representation.
Even after receipt of the parawise remarks the companynected file was submitted to the officers on 10.12.1991.
The State of Tamil Nadu and the District Magistrate, Salem have filed the above appeals challenging the order of the High Court.
29.11.1991 Representation of the detenu received by the District Magistrate and Collector, Salem District, from the Central Prison.
The High Court wrongly applied the ratio of the cases decided by this Court which have been referred in the impugned orders of the High Court.
The petitioner and his associates were remanded only in Cr.
5.12.1991 Report of the District Magistrate and Collector, Salem District received by the Sate Government.
On 16th and 17th December, 1991, the Chief Minister was busy in the Statewide companyference of District Collector and Superintendents of Police which was held for the purpose of discussing and taking policy decision on the law and order problem in the State especially in the light of LTTE Militant activities.
10.12.1991 File dealt by the Under Secretary.
12.12.1991 File approved by the Secretary.
13.12.1991 Friday File received by the office of the Chief Minister.
The Under Secretary to Government passed orders in the file on 10.12.1991 and Deputy Secretary to Government passed orders in the file on 11.12.1991.
The facts in brief are that five persons including the aforesaid three respondents joined together, agreed and companyspired to sell Thinner as arrack by rendering the said Thinner companytaining methyl alcohol for human companysumption and they agreed to share the huge profit.
The said report was received by the State Government on 5.12.1991.
10.12.1991 File put up to the officers 7.12.91 and 8.12.91 being holidays .
21.12.1991 Saturday Orders passed by the Chief Minister rejecting the representation of the detenu.
The District Magistrate himself had also received the representation of the detenu on 29.11.1991.
15.12.1991 Sunday.
16.12.1991 Statewide Collectors and 17.12.1991 Superintendents of Police companyference presided over and participated by the Chief Minister.
The High Court in the impugned order has dealt with this question on the basis of the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government itself according to which a representation was submitted by the detenu on 25.11.1991 which was received by the government on 27.11.1991 through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
The District Magistrate had called the remarks of the sponsoring authority i.e. the Inspector of Police and the remarks were sent by the sponsoring authority to the District Magistrate on 30th November, 1991.
19.12.1991 Chief Minister Participated in the official University function.
The Court was number satisfied in respect of such delay of 7 days which had occurred at the hands of the Assistant Secretary.
29.11.1991 Remarks of the sponsoring authority called for by the District Magistrate and Collector, Salem District.
Though these cases relate to three different detenues namely C. Subramani, A. Vadivel alias Sundaravadivel and M. Selvam, but we are disposing of all the cases by one companymon order as the facts and grounds of challenge are almost identical.
7 persons died as a result of companysuming liquor.
Though 7.12.1991 and 8.12.1991 are stated to be holidays, numberreason was given for number putting up the file before the officers on 6.12.1991.
3.12.1991.
1026/1991 with which the detenu is number companycerned, does number vitiate the order of detention passed against the detenu.
30.11.1991 Remarks sent by the sponsoring authority to the District Magistrate and Collector, Salem District.
22.12.1991 Sunday 23.12.1991 Orders issued by the Government.
On the basis of the above chronology of the events, Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the periods from 28.12.1991 to 3.12.1991 is clearly explained inasmuch as the parawise remarks were called from the District Magistrate by letter dated 28.11.1991.
14.12.1991 Saturday.
11.12.1991 File dealt by the Deputy Secretary.
The detenues respondents challenged their order of detention on several grounds, but the High Court quashed the order of detention simply on the ground that the representation submitted by the detenues dated 25.11.1991 was disposed of after long delay which remained unexplained and directed the respondents to be set at liberty.
It was further stated that the order of detention was passed only with reference to the activities of the detenu and his associates which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the detenu and his associates were involved only in Cr.M. Kasliwal, J. Special leave granted.
The District Magistrate and Collector of Salem District passed an order of detention under Sections 3 1 and 3 2 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum grabbers Act, 1982 hereinafter referred to as the Act on 23.10.1991 for detention of the respondents.
All the above appeals by the State of Tamil Nadu and the District Magistrate and Collector, District Salem are directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 9.3.1992.
Investigation companyducted by the police officials clearly revealed that the respondents and their associates had been systematically indulging in manufacturing and sale of such illicit liquor thereby endangering human life and public health and as such acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
