Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1355 (MAD)

Krishnaveni v. Secretary to the Govt.

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.1358 of 2013 dated 16.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J-1, Saidapet Police Station, Crime No.478 of 2008 Section 379 IPC 2. J-1, Saidapet Police Station, Crime No.577 of 2010 Section 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC 3. J-1, Saidapet Police Station, Crime No.706 of 2010 Section 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC 4. S-6, Sankar Nagar Police Station, Crime No.4032 of 2012 Section 302 IPC 5. J-1, Saidapet Police Station, Crime No.540 of 2013 Sections 341, 384 and 506(ii) IPC 6. J-1, Saidapet Police Station, Crime No.552 of 2013 Sections 3341, 397, 294(b), 427, 336 and 506(ii) IPC 7. S-6, Sankar Nagar Police Station, Crime No.1241 of 2013 Sections 341 and 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 30.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S6, Sankar Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1247 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation 08.10.2013, which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, on this sole ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 16.10.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, the detenu made a representation dated 08.10.2013 to the authorities concerned, which was received on 21.10.2013, for which the remarks called on 22.10.2013 were received on 25.11.2013. On submission of the file on 25.11.2013, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 28.11.2013. On submission of the file on 25.11.2013, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 28.11.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 05.12.2013, which was sent to the detenu on 01.12.2013. 6. In this whole process, there occurred an inordinate delay of 28 days, namely, between 22.10.2013 and 25.11.2013 (excluding holidays falling on 30.11.2013 and 1st, 7th and 8th of December 2013), which would definitely cause great prejudice to the detenu and amount to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and is vitiated. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Suresh, S/o. Arumugam, made in BDFGISSV No.1358 of 2013 dated 16.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be 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 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.