Kurran @ Rajamani v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 19.06.2006Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALANHabeas Corpus Petition No.260 of 2006 Kurran @ Rajamani... PetitionerVs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

The District Magistrate and DistrictCollector, Vellore District, Vellore..... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 31.01.2006 in office Ref. No.C3.D.O.No.12/2006against the petitioner Thiru Kurran @ Rajamani, S/o. Muthan, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.E.KannadasanFor Respondents: Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public ProsecutorO R D E R (Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN J.)The petitioner by name Kurran @ Rajamani, who was detained asa ''Goonda" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, ForestOffenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982(Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 31.01.2006, challenges the same in this Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learnedAdditional Public prosecutor 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 GovernmentAdvocate has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 06.03.2006 was received by the Government on 07.03.2006 and remarks were called for on 08.03.2006and the reminder was sent on 15.03.2006. Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 29.03.2006 and the File was submitted on the same day i.e. on 29.03.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary also on the same day i.e. on 29.03.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 30.03.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.04.2006 and the same was sent to thedetenu on 13.04.2006 and served to him on 15.04.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 30.03.2006,there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 10.04.2006. 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.260 of 2006AMB (CO)kk 26/6