Palanisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Tamil Nadu Act
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Even at the foremost the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detention. With reference to the said claim the learned GovernmentAdvocate has placed details, which…
Judgment
In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated:18.04.2006Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMARHabeas Corpus Petition No.94 of 2006 Palanisamy .. Petitionervs.
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Prohibition & Excise Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.
The District Magistrate & District Collector Coimbatore District. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.P.Venkatasubramanianfor Mr.C.RamkumarFor respondents : Mr.Abudukumar Rajaratrhinam Govt., Advocate (Crl.)ORDER(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,)The petitioner by name Palanisamy, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 16.01.2006, detaining his brother Subramani @Kaanaan, as "Boot-Legger" under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil NaduPrevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and SlumGrabbers Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"). 2. Heard both sides.
Even at the foremost the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detention. With reference to the said claim the learned GovernmentAdvocate has placed details, which show that the representation of the detenue dated 21.01.2006 was received by the Government on24.01.2006 and remarks were called on 25.01.2006, reminder was sent on 03.02.2006, remarks were received on 07.02.2006. After receipt of the remarks, the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 08.02.2006; order was passed by the Minister for Prohibition and Excise on 10.02.2006, rejection letter was prepared on 17.02.2006; the same was sent to the detenu on the same day itself and the rejection letter was served on the detenu on 20.02.2006. Asrightly pointed out though the concerned Minister has passed an order on 10.02.2006, there is no explanation or reason for not forwarding the same to the detenu till 20.02.2006. In the absence of any explanation, we hold that the delay between 10.02.2006 and 20.02.2006is enormous. On this ground, the impugned detention order is vitiated and the same is quashed; accordingly, this petition is allowed. Theorder of detention impugned in the petition is set aside and thedetenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case. KhSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The District Magistrate & District Collector, Coimbatore District.3. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.TEJ (CO)RSM/26.4.2006 H.C.P.No.94 of 2006
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.