Venkat @ Venkatesan v. The State 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 Inspector of Police(Crime), V-3, J.J. Nagar Police Station, Chennai-600 050... 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 order passed by the second respondent in memoNo.48/BDFGISV/2006…
- Para 44. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed tobe set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required insome other case or cause. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar raa https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 22.08.2006Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.MANIKUMARHabeas Corpus Petition No.591 of 2006 Venkat @ Venkatesan ... PetitionerVs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8.
The Inspector of Police(Crime), V-3, J.J. Nagar Police Station, Chennai-600 050... 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 order passed by the second respondent in memoNo.48/BDFGISV/2006 dated 10.02.2006 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu viz.,Venkat @ Venkatesan S/o Ettiappan now confined at Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.T.SaravananFor 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 by name Venkat @ Venkatesan, 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 impugned detention order dated 10.02.2006, 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 petitioner submitted that there is enormous delay in disposal of the representation of thedetenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. Withreference to the above claim, learned Additional Public Prosecutorhas placed the details, which show that the representation of thedetenu dated 16.03.2006 was received by the Government on 20.03.2006and remarks were called for on 21.03.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 27.03.2006 and the File was submitted on 28.03.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretaryand Deputy Secretary on the same day i.e. on 28.03.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on29.03.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.04.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 11.04.2006 and served to him on12.04.2006.
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 29.03.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 10.04.2006. 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 hisrepresentation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.
Operative part
Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed tobe set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required insome other case or cause. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar raa 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, Egmore, Chennai-8.3.The Inspector of Police(Crime), V-3, J.J. Nagar Police Station, Chennai-600 050.4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai. (In duplicate for communication to detenu)
The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.+1CC to Mr.T.Saravanan, Advocate Sr 37796PV (CO)km/29.8. HCP. No.591 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.