Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 479 (MAD)

Anjali v. The Secretary to Govt & Others

2006-02-24

J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR, P.SATHASIVAM

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 in Memo No.244/BDFGISV/2005 dated 25.5.2005 from the file of the second respondent, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai-8, in detention order Memo No.244/BDFGISV/2005 dated 25.5.2005 against the petitioner's son Palani as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, cause production of body and person of the petitioner's son Palani, aged 26 yrs. S/o.Mani, who is now detained as a Goonda at the Central Prison, Chennai-3, under the control of the 4th respondent herein, before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu by name Palani. She challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 25.05.2005, detaining her son as 'Goonda' 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). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu dated 18.06.2005 was received by the Government on 21.06.2005, remarks were called for on 22.06.2005 and the same were received on 27.06.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 28.06.2005. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 29.06.2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 06.07.2005. The said letter was sent to the Prison for service on the same date and served to the detenu on 07.07.2005. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the competent authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and Excise, passed orders on 29.06.2005, there is no reason for taking time till 06.07.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper explanation, even if we exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to the detenu in considering his representation effectively. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is quashed. 5. In the absence of proper explanation, even if we exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to the detenu in considering his representation effectively. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is quashed. 5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.