Ilayaraja v. The State

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.392 of 2006 Ilayaraja ... PetitionerVs.

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

The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District at Kancheepuram... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order made in B.D.F.G.I.S.V.No.8/2006 dated 27.02.2006 in detaining thedetenue under 2-b of Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982, as a Bootlegger, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Saratha, wife of Mohan, aged about 35 years, who is detained at Special Prison for Women, Vellore, before this Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.O.S.Thilak PasumbadiyarFor 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 detenue by name Saratha, who is detained as a ''Bootlegger" as contemplated under the Tamil NaduPrevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, ForestOffenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and VideoPirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order dated 27.02.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.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 detenue, 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 detenue dated 04.04.2006 was received by the Government on 06.04.2006 and remarks were called for on07.04.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 17.04.2006and the File was submitted on 20.04.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary on the same day i.e. on 20.04.2006 and by the DeputySecretary on 21.04.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on the same day i.e. on 21.04.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.05.2006 and the same was sent to the detenue on12.05.2006 and served to him on 16.05.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibitionand Excise passed an order on 21.04.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 10.05.2006. Inthe 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 detenue in disposal of her representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. HCP. No.392 of 200603.07.2006pli(co)gp/12.7.