Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Quashed
Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is quashedand the habeas corpus petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The particulars furnished by the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor show that the representation of the detenudated 22.03.2006 was received by the Government on 23.03.2006;remarks were called for on the same day; remarks were received on 30.03.2006 and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Under…
- Para 44. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu isdirected to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.glSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and…
Judgment
In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 25.09.2006Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANANHabeas Corpus Petition No.688 of 2006 Dinesh @ Deena @ Dinakaran..Petitioner..vs..
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, Chennai...RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.ChellappanFor Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.ORDER(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.,)The petitioner, namely, Dinesh @ Deena @ Dinakaran, who was detained as "Goonda" under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral TrafficOffenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil NaduAct 14 of 1982) by the impugned proceedings dated 21.02.2006,challenges the same in this habeas corpus petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2. Even at the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there was undue delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate detention order passed by the second respondent.
The particulars furnished by the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor show that the representation of the detenudated 22.03.2006 was received by the Government on 23.03.2006;remarks were called for on the same day; remarks were received on 30.03.2006 and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 31.03.2006 and they dealt with the same on the same day. The Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 03.04.2006. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 10.04.2006 and ultimately the same was served to the detenu on 12.04.2006.Though the concerned authority, namely, Minister for Prohibitionand Excise has passed an order, rejecting the representation of the petitioner even as early as on 03.04.2006, it is not clear why time was taken till 10.04.2006 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of any explanation by the person / persons concerned, we hold that the delay is on the higher side, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention passed by the second respondent and on this ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
Operative part
Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu isdirected to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.glSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai. (in duplicate for communication to detenu)4. The Joint Secretary to Govt., Public (Law & Order), Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.AKM(CO)NM(06.10.2006)H.C.P.No.688 of 2006
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is quashedand the habeas corpus petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.