Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
2011 passed by the first respondent is set aside and the HabeasCorpus Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 22(5), 226
- Tamil Nadu Act
Key paragraphs
- Para 2222. Advancing the arguments while assailing the order of thedetention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointedout that there are unexplained delay of 4 days in considering therepresentation of the detenu and therefore, the detention order isvitiated. Apart from that, at another stage, there…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 14.06.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALIH.C.P.(MD)No.111 of 2011G.Kala : PetitionerVs.
State represented by The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. : RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiato issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records from thefirst respondent in No.MHS.Confdl.02/2011, dated 19.01.2011 bysetting aside the said order of detention passed by the firstrespondent and setting the detenu Gangatharan, aged about 33 yearsS/o.Mookaiya Asari at liberty now detained in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai. For petitioner : Mr.K.PrabhuFor respondents : Mr.D.Ramar, Addl. Public ProsecutorO R D E R(Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN,J.)The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Gangatharan. Challenging an Order of Detention made by the first respondent inNo.MHS.Confdl.02/2011, dated 19.01.2011 branding the detenu as a“Goonda” under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, ForestOffenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982),this Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Advancing the arguments while assailing the order of thedetention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointedout that there are unexplained delay of 4 days in considering therepresentation of the detenu and therefore, the detention order isvitiated. Apart from that, at another stage, there was delay of 4days. Though File was circulated to Hon'ble Minister (Law, Courtsand Prisons) on 18.02.2011, rejection letter was prepared only on25.02.2011. In the interregnum, there was a delay of 6 days, out ofwhich 2 days were holidays, the remaining 4 days delay were notexplained. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andthe learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for therespondents and perused the records. 4. It is seen from the Proforma produced by the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor before this Court that therepresentation of the detenu was received on 07.02.2011, remarks werecalled for on 08.02.2011 but remarks were received only on15.02.2011.
Thus, there was a delay of 6 days, out of which, 2 dayshappened to be holidays and in effect, there was a delay of 4 days inconsidering the representation, which remains unexplained. Apartfrom that, at another stage, there was delay of 6 days. Though Filewas circulated to Hon'ble Minister (Law, Courts and Prisons) on18.02.2011, rejection letter was prepared only on 25.02.2011. In theinterregnum, there was a delay of 6 days, out of which 2 days wereholidays, the remaining 4 days delay was not explained.5. Such unexplained delay in considering the representationwould amount to deprivation of making effective representationguaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India andtherefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.6. When there is an unexplained delay, we are of theconsidered view that the detention order is vitiated and we are notpersuaded with the other grounds raised by the learned counsel forthe petitioner.7.
Operative part
Hence, the detention order in No.MHS.Confdl.02/2011, dated19.01.2011 passed by the first respondent is set aside and the HabeasCorpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be releasedforthwith unless his presence is required in connection with anyother case. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side)/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3TO1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI – 9. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI.4. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC (LAW & ORDER) FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI -9.5. THE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, KALLIDAIKURICHI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI.6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.7. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.H.C.P.(MD)No.111 of 201114.06.2011MPKNSV/5.7.11/3P/8C
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 2011 passed by the first respondent is set aside and the HabeasCorpus Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 22(5), 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.