Settu @ Arumugam v. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 05.07.2006Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALANHabeas Corpus Petition No.443 of 2006 Settu @ Arumugam ... PetitionerVs.

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

The District Magistrate and District Collector, Thiruchirappalli District, Thiruchirappalli. ... 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 No.Cr.M.P.No.25/2006 dated 9.3.2006 passed by the second respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu by name Krishnan, aged about 72 years,S/o.Chinnathambi, the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner: Mr.A.K.S.ThahirFor 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 son of the detenu by name Krishnan, 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 order dated 9.03.2006, 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 dated 8.04.2006 was received by the Government on 13.04.2006 and the remarks were called for on 17.04.2006. The representation of the detenu was received from the Government on 18.04.2006 and parawar remarks were called for from the Sponsoring authority on 18.4.2006 and the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority on 09.05.2006 and report was sent to the Governmenton 12.05.2006. In the mean time, the reminder was sent on 2.05.2006. Theremarks were received on 17.5.2006 and the File was submitted on the sameday i.e. 17.05.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretaryalso on the same day on 17.05.2006 and by the the Deputy Secretary on22.05.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23.05.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 24.05.2006and the same was sent to the detenu on 25.05.2006 and served to him on27.5.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though parawar remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 18.4.2006, the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority by the Collectorate only on 09.05.2006 and there is no explanation at all for sending the remarks to the Collectoratebelatedly. 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 sending the remarks to the Collectorate 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. Tej(co)gp/12.7. HCP. No.443 of 2006