Arumugam v. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Case at a glance
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Even at the foremost the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the said claim the learned Government Advocate has placed details, which…
Judgment
In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated:18.04.2006Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAMandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMARHabeas Corpus Petition No.110 of 2006 Arumugam .. Petitionervs.
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned detention ordervide No. 536/2005 dated on 7.12.2005 passed by the second respondent and approved by the first respondent and quash the same illegal and consequently direct the respondent to produce thedetenue Arumugam, Son of Dhansingh now lodged in Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty and therein. For petitioner : Mr. N. Doraisamifor Mr. S. JayaseelanFor respondents : Mr. Abudukumar Rajaratrhinam Govt., Advocate (Crl.)ORDER(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,)The petitioner by name Arumugam, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 07.12.2005, detaining him as "Goonda"under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of DangerousActivities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"). 2. Heard both sides. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Even at the foremost the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the said claim the learned Government Advocate has placed details, which show that the representation of the detenue dated 06.01.2006 was received by the Government on 09.01.2006 and remarks were called on10.01.2006, remarks were received on 13.01.2006. After receipt of the remarks, the file was dealt with by the Under Secretaryand the Deputy Secretary on 16.01.2006; order was passed by the Minister for Prohibition and Excise on 17.01.2006, rejection letter was prepared on 30.01.2006; the same was sent to the detenuon 30.01.2006 and the rejection letter was served on the detenu on31.01.2006. As rightly pointed out though the concerned Ministerhas passed an order on 17.01.2006, there is no explanation or reason for not forwarding the same to the detenu till 31.01.2006.In the absence of any explanation, we hold that the delay between17.01.2006 and 31.01.2006 is enormous. On this ground, the impugned detention order is vitiated and the same is quashed; accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order of detention impugned in the petition is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case. KhSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr.S. Jayaseelan, Advocate SR No.19517SGL(CO)SR/27.4.2006 Order in H.C.P.No.110 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Dt.18.04.2006
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.