Raja @ Senthil Raja v. The Commisioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and theimpugned order of detention is set aside
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for theissuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the recordspertaining to the order of detention passed by the first respondentherein and made in Memo No.64/BDFGISV/2006 dated 06.03.2006…
- Para 44. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and theimpugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directedto be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he isrequired in some other case or cause. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrarraa https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 03.07.2006Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALANHabeas Corpus Petition No.348 of 2006 Raja @ Senthil Raja ... PetitionerVs.
The Commisioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.
The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chief Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for theissuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the recordspertaining to the order of detention passed by the first respondentherein and made in Memo No.64/BDFGISV/2006 dated 06.03.2006, setaside the same and to direct the third respondent to produce thebody of the petitioner Raja @ Senthil Raja, now confined in CentralPrison, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.T.S.SrinivasanFor 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 Raja @ Senthilraja, who is detained as a''Goonda" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, ForestOffenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugneddetention order dated 06.03.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that there is enormous delay in disposal of therepresentation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order ofdetention. With reference to the above claim, learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor has placed the details, which show that therepresentation of the detenu dated 31.03.2006 was received by the Government on 03.04.2006 and remarks were called for on 04.04.2006and the remarks were received by the Government on 07.04.2006 andthe File was submitted on 10.04.2006 and the same was dealt with bythe Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day i.e. on10.04.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excisepassed orders on 11.04.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on05.05.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on the same day on05.05.2006 and served to him on 06.05.2006.
As rightly pointed outby the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 11.04.2006, there is noexplanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejectionletter till 05.05.2006. In the absence of any explanation by theperson concerned even after excluding the intervening holidays, weare of the view that the time taken for preparation of rejectionletter is on the higher side and we hold that the said delay hasprejudiced the detenu in disposal of his representation. On thisground, we quash the impugned order of detention.
Operative part
Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and theimpugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directedto be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he isrequired in some other case or cause. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrarraa https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai. (In duplicate for communication to detenu)4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.+1cc to Mr.T.S.Srinivasan, Advocate Sr 28103GGK (CO)km/10.7. HCP. No.348 of 2006
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and theimpugned order of detention is set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Video Pirates Act, 1982; Tamil Nadu Act.
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.