Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1317 (MAD)

J. Mumtaj v. Secretary to Government, Chennai

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1518/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 04.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 H6 R.K.Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1127/2013 147, 148, 302 and 506[ii] IPC 2 H6 R.K.Nagar Police Station Cr.NO.1130/2013 14, 148, 341, 294[b], 353, 336, 427, 307 & 506[ii] IPC 3 H4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.No.482/2013 341, 294[b], 397, 336, 427 & 506[ii] IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station in Crime No.648/2013 for offences under Sections 294[b], 341, 323, 384, 427, 336, 307 and 506[ii] IPC. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the question of delay in consideration of the petitioner's representation, which has not been properly explained by the respondents. Therefore, it would vitiate the rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 4. We have heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records. 5. On a perusal of the list informing the course of consideration of the petitioner's representation, it is seen that the Detention Order was passed on 04.11.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 16.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 16.11.2013; remarks were called on the same day and only on 24.01.2014 remarks were received and file was submitted on 28.01.2014; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on the same day but the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it on 30.01.2014 and the Rejection letter was prepared on 31.01.2014 and it was sent to the detenu on 03.02.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of forty one [41] days between 19.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 24.01.2014, the date on which remarks were received [66 days] excluding holidays [25 days]. The said delay is not explained by the competent authority. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of forty one [41] days between 19.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 24.01.2014, the date on which remarks were received [66 days] excluding holidays [25 days]. The said delay is not explained by the competent authority. Therefore, it is apparent that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in consideration of the petitioner's representation and the same contradicts the requirement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the consequence thereof is in infringement of the right of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in BDFGISSSV No.1518/2013 dated 04.11.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Raghuman, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.