Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1359 (MAD)

Muniammal v. Commissioner of Police, 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.1489/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 30.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 S-5, Pallavaram Police Station, Crime No.1503/2012 379 IPC 2 S-15, Selaiyur Police Station, Crime No.681/2013 379 IPC 3 S-5, Pallavaram Police Station, Crime No.590/2013 379 IPC 4 S-12, Chitlapakkam Police Station, Crime No.869/2013 379 IPC 5 S-5, Pallavaram Police Station, Crime No.787/2013 379 IPC 6 S-5, Pallavaram Police Station, Crime No.1021/2013 379 IPC 7 S-9, Pazhavanthangal Police Station, Crime No.694/2013 379 IPC 8 S-15, Selaiyur Police Station, Crime No.1388/2013 379 IPC 9 E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No.1537/2013 379 IPC 10 S-12, Chitlapakkam Police Station, Crime No.1296/2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 13.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law & Order, S-5, Pallavaram Police Station in Crime No.1221/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 336, 427 & 506(ii) IPC. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed 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 30.10.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority dated 19.11.13 and it was received by the competent authority on 03.12.2013; remarks were called for on 03.12.2013 and it was received on the same day and the file was submitted on 04.12.2013; the Under Secretary dealt with on 04.12.2013, the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 04.12.2013; on 10.12.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 16.12.2013 and it was sent to the detenu on 18.12.2013. 6. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of 5 days between 04.12.2013, the date on which the Deputy Secretary dealt with the file and 10.12.2013, the date on which the representation was rejected by the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise), 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 BDFGISSSV No.1489/2013 dated 30.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Karuppasamy in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.