Taking note of the circumstances of the case, the top court at the outset observed that:
“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.”
While allowing the appeal, the Court noted,
“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.”
Thus, the Court directed that the detenu be set free forthwith, if not required in connection with any criminal case pending against him. Consequently, the judgment passed by the Madras High Court was set aside.
Source: Barandbench
