Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1353 (MAD)

Lakshmi v. State of Tamilnadu

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.1602/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 13.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 J7 Velachery PS Cr.No.1301/2009 379 IPC 2 S-12, Chitlapakkam PS. Cr. No.336/2010 379 IPC 3 S-10 Pallikaranai PS Cr.No.537/2010 379 IPC 4 S-10 Pallikaranai PS Cr.No.538/2010 379 IPC 5 S-10 Pallikaranai PS Cr.NO.593/2010 392 IPC 6 S-10 Pallikaranai PS Cr.No.114/2013 341, 294[b], 324, 506 [ii] IPC 7 S-10 Pallikaranai PS Cr.No.1681/2013 457, 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 28.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station in Crime No.1859/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 392, 336, 397, 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 13.11.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 21.12.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 30.12.2013; remarks were called on 30.12.2013 and only on 09.01.2014 remarks were received and file was submitted on the same day; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on09.01.2014, but the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 17.01.2014 and it was sent to the detenu on 24.01.2014. 6. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of eighteen [18] days [1]between 30.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 09.01.2014, the date on which remarks were received [10 days] ; [2]between 09.01.2014, the date on which the Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter and 17.01.2014 , the date on which the Minister dealt with the case [8 days] ; and [3]between 17.01.2014, the date on which the Minister dealt with and the preparation of the Rejection letter [7 days] excluding holidays [7 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.1602/2013 dated 13.11.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Manikandan @ Kolar Mani in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.