N.Ravishankar v. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 26.06.2006Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALANHabeas Corpus Petition No.329 of 2006N.Ravishankar ... PetitionerVs.

State, rep. by the Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

The District Magistrate and District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore. ... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to callfor the records of the second respondent pertaining to theorder made in C3 D.O.No.35/2006 dated 23.03.2006 indetaining the detenu under 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of1982 as a Bootlegger, quash the same and direct therespondents to produce the detenu, viz., Samba @ Sambath, son of Govindasamy aged 55 years, who is detained at the Central Prison, Vellore before this Court and set him atliberty. For Petitioner: Mr.O.S.Thilak PasumbadiarFor 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 friend of the detenu byname Samba @ Sambath, who is detained as a ''Bootlegger" ascontemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of DangerousActivities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, ForestOffenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, SlumGrabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 23.03.2006,challenges the same in this Petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well aslearned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that there is enormous delay in disposal of therepresentation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimateorder of detention. With reference to the above claim, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed thedetails, which show that the representation of the detenudated 26.03.2006 was received by the Government on27.03.2006 and remarks were called for on 28.03.2006 andthe remarks were received by the Government on 24.04.2006and the File was submitted on 25.04.2006 and the same wasdealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretaryon 26.04.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 27.04.2006. The rejection letterwas prepared on 10.05.2006 and the same was sent to thedetenu on 15.05.2006 and served to him on 18.05.2006. Asrightly pointed out by the learned counsel for thepetitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excisepassed an order on 27.04.2006, there is no explanation atall for taking time for preparation of rejection lettertill 10.05.2006. In the absence of any explanation by theperson concerned even after excluding the interveningholidays, we are of the view that the time taken forpreparation of rejection letter is on the higher side andwe hold that the said delay has prejudiced the detenu indisposal of his representation. On this ground, we quashthe impugned order of detention.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.pv(co)nm(03.06.2006) HCP. No.329 of 2006