Malar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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.332 of 2006 Malar ... PetitionerVs.

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

The District Magistrate and District Collector, Krshnagiri, Krishnagiri District. ... 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 dated03.02.2006 in his office Ref.S.C.20/2005 against the petitioner's brotherSaravanan @ Vignesh, S/o Marimuthu, now confined in Central Prison, Salemand set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the abovesaid 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 P.SATHASIVAM,J.)The petitioner, who is the sister of the detenu by name Saravanan @Vignesh, who is detained as a ''Goonda" as contemplated under the TamilNadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 03.02.2006, 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 Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 21.03.2006 and the remarks were called for on the same dayi.e. on 21.03.2006 and 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 same dayi.e. on 18.04.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excisepassed orders on 19.04.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on10.05.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 12.05.2006 and served to him on 16.05.2006. 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.1 cc To Mr.E.Kannadasan, Advocate, SR.27144. HCP. No.332 of 2006HPR(CO)RVL 03.07.2006