STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus C. SUBRAMANI AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 08-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
STATE OF TAMIL NAnO AND ANR. 
v 
C. SUBRAMANI.AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 
(KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug 
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum 
Grabbers Ac~ J</12 : 
Sections 3(1) and 3(2~tention Omer-Representation agains~ 
Time spent in dealing with-No unifonn period applicable to all cases-To 
be decided in the palficular facts and circumstances of each case-Sufficient 
explanation by Government-No inference of 'delay-Detention order--
Whether valid. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Alficle 22(5)-l'reventive detention-Time spent in considering repre-
sentation-Sufficiently explained by Government-Inference of delay-Nega-
tived-Detention Omer-Validity of 
Since the respondents and their associates had been systematically 
Indulging In the manufacture and sale of Illicit liquor endangering human 
life and public health and as such acting in Ii manner prejudicial to the 
maintenance of public order, the District Magistrate passed an order of 
detention under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Tamil Nadn Prevention of 
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, 
Goondas, Immoral Trame Offenders and Slum1P"8bbers Act, 1972 for 
detention of the respondents. The detention order was challenged by the 
respondents and the High Court quashed the detention order on the 
ground that the representation of the detenues was disposed of after long 
G delay which remained unexplained. 
The State Government preferred the present appeals challenging the 
order of the High Court. 
On behalf of the appellants, It was contended that the repre-
H sentatlon was dealt with by the authorities with utmost speed and 
442 
STATE v. C. SUBRAMANI 
443 
promptitude and there was no delay; that subsequently it was received In A 
the Chief Minister's office and on account of the busy schedule, the Chief 
Minister could look Into it only after a week; that the Representation was 
rejected and the orders were issued by the Government on the next 
working day, without any delay. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1. The question of any period taken in dealing with the 
representation has to be decided in the particular facts and clrcnmstances 
of each case and it cannot be determined on the basis of any rigid period 
B 
of time uniformly applicable to all cases. A lee-way has to be given In C 
considering such representation by the Government and no Inference of 
delay leading to the violation of constitutional mandate enshrined In 
Clause (5) of Article 22 can be drawn unless It shows that the authorities 
dealing with the representation bad adopted an attitude of leisureness, 
supine indifference, slackness, unduly protracted procrastination or cal· 
lous attitude in considering snch representation. [449 F·G] 
D 
1.2. In the instant cases, the Government bas sufficiently explained Iha 
period spent in dealing with the representation of the detenues, and the High 
Court was wrong in quashing the order of detention. [449-H; 450-A] 
E 
K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India and 
Ors. State of Kamataka & Ors., [1991] 1 SCC 476, relied on. 
Gazi khan alias Chotia v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., [1991] SCC 
(Crl.) 24 = [1990] 3 SCC 459; Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union 
of India and Ors., S.C. (1989) 2 Crimes 111 = [19891 3 SCC 277 and F 
Mohinuddin alias Moin Master v. Distn'ct Magistrate, Beed and Ors., [1987] 
sec (Crl.) 674 = [19871 4 sec 58, distinguished. 
2. Non-furnishing of documents relating to some other case with 
which a detenu was not concerned, and oniy a passing reference to that G 
case was made In the detention order, does not vitiate the order of 
detention passed against the detenu. In view of the explanation given by 
the detaining authority himself that the order of detention was passed by 
him only after application of mind and that no estraneous and irrelevant 
materials were taken into consideration, there could be no challenge to the 
detention order. [450 G-H; 451-A] 
H 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992J SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 549 to 551 of 1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.92 of the Madras High 
Court in W.P. Nos. 17506, 17507 and 17508 of 1991. 
B 
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, K.V. Venkataraman and 
K.V. Vishwanathan for the Appellants. 
N. Natarajan, V. Krishnamurthy

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.