Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1482 (MAD)

Vasuki v. The Secretary to Government & Another

2006-06-26

P.SATHASIVAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2006
Judgment :- (Petition 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 second respondent pertaining to the detention order made in C.O.C.No.2/2006 dated 31.01.2006 in detaining the detenu under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a "Bootlegger", quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the said detenu namely, Ravi, son of Kathan aged 34 years who is detained at Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Ravi, who is detained as a ''Bootlegger" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 31.01.2006, challenges the same in this Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional 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 the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 07.03.2006 was received by the Government on 08.03.2006 and remarks were called for on 09.03.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on 20.03.2006 and the File was submitted on 21.03.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 22.03.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23.03.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 10.04.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 12.04.2006 and served to him on 15.04.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 23.03.2006, 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 his representation. 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 his representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention. 4. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.