Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1330 (MAD)

Anandavalli v. Commissioner of Police

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the daughter of the detenue. The detenue has been branded as a "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the first respondent passed in Memo No.1649/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 18.11.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following case: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station Crime No.95/2012 8(c) r/w 20(b) of NDPS Act 2 P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station Crime No.1445/2012 20(b) of NDPS Act 3 P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station Crime No.291/2013 8(c) r/w 20(b) of NDPS Act 4 P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station Crime No.652/2013 20(b) of NDPS Act 5 P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station Crime No.769/2013 8(c) r/w 20(b) of NDPS Act 6 P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station Crime No.789/2013 8(c) r/w 20(b) of NDPS Act The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 09.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station in Crime No.867/2013 for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b) of NDPS Act. 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 18.11.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority dated 02.12.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 04.12.2013; remarks were called on 04.12.2013 and only on 16.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 17.12.2013; the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 17.12.2013; on 24.12.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 26.12.2013 and it was sent to the detenu on 30.12.2013. 6. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 5 days between 04.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 16.12.2013, the date on which remarks were received, excluding holidays. 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 first respondent in Memo No.1649/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 18.11.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Tmt. Vel Azhagi, wife of Manivannan, aged about 47 years, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case.