K.Velu v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 13.06.2006Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALANHabeas Corpus Petition No.145 of 2006K.Velu... PetitionerVs.

State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Special Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9.

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. .... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the second respondent in No.28/2006 and quash the order dated 24.1.2006 and direct the respondents to forthwith produce the body of the petitioner/detenuAnandan @ Chottai Anandan, S/o Kasi before this Court and order his immediate release from detention in Central Prison, Chennai and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mrs.R.Subadra DeviFor Respondents: Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public ProsecutorO R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu by name Anandan @Chottai Anandan, who was detained as a ''Bootlegger" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, DrugOffenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982(Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 24.01.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learnedGovernment Advocate for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is enormous delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim, learned Government Advocate has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 05.04.2006 was received by the Government on 6.04.2006 and remarks were called for on07.04.2006. Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on17.04.2006 and the File was submitted on 18.04.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on the sameday i.e. on 18.04.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 19.04.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on10.05.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 11.05.2006 and served to him on 12.05.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 19.04.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 10.05.2006. In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned even after excluding the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the time taken for preparation of rejection letter is on the higher side and we hold that the said delay has prejudiced the detenu in disposal of his representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. HCP. No.145 of 200613.06.2006mm(co)gp/20.6.