Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1348 (MAD)

Sumathy 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.1144/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 27.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases : S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 G.1 Vepery Police Station, Cr.No.764/2013 302 IPC 2 G.2 Periyamedu Police Station, Cr.No.765/2013 341, 294(b), 384 and 506 (ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered 11.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, G.1 Vepery Police Station in Crime No.766/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294 (b), 353, 336, 427 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 27.09.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 18.10.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 11.11.2013; remarks were called on 12.11.2013 and only on 06.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 06.01.2014; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on the same day but the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it on 13.01.2014 and the Rejection letter was prepared on 24.01.2014 and it was sent to the detenu on the same day. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of forty seven days [47 days] between 12.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 06.01.2014, the date on which remarks were received [54 days]; and between 13.01.2014, the date on which the Minister has dealt with the case and 24.01.2014, the date on which rejection letter was prepared [11 days] excluding holidays [18 days]. The said delay is not explained by the competent authority. 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 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Karthik, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.