Rajivi Gandhi v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case at a glance
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Outcome
Set aside
Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and theimpugned order of detention is set aside
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Tamil Nadu Act
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. 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, learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor has placed the details, which show…
- Para 44. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenue isdirected to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless she is required in some other case or cause. raaSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 04.09.2006Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.MANIKUMARHabeas Corpus Petition No.616 of 2006 Rajivi Gandhi ... PetitionerVs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
The District Magistrate and District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram... 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 inNo.C2/13016/2006 dated 13.03.2006, quash the same and produce the detenue viz.,Kattachi @ Renganayagi, W/o Selvam, who is now confined at Special Prison for Women, Vellore-2 before ther Courtand set her at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.N.Doraisamy for Mr.M.RamadossFor Respondents: Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public Prosecutor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)The petitioner, who is the son of the detenue by nameKattachi @ Renganayagi, who is detained as a ''Bootlegger" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of DangerousActivities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and VideoPirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 13.03.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional 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, learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenue was received by the Government on 06.04.2006 and remarks were called for on07.04.2006 and the reminder was sent on 20.04.2006 and theremarks were received by the Government on 24.04.2006 and the Filewas submitted on the same day i.e. on 24.04.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary also on the same day i.e. on 24.04.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 25.04.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.05.2006 and the same was sent to thedetenue on 12.05.2006 and served to her on 15.05.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on25.04.2006, 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 detenue in disposal of her representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Operative part
Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenue isdirected to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless she is required in some other case or cause. raaSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, VillupuramDistrict, Villupuram.3. The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Vellore-2. (In duplicate for communication to detenue)4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr. M. Ramadoss, Advocate SR No. 40471NG(CO)SR/8.9.2006 HCP. No.616 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; 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.