Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1363 (MAD)

Mallika v. State of Tamilnadu

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenue. The detenue has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the second respondent passed in Memo No.1967/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 16.12.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 J-6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Crime No.1982/2012 302 and 380 IPC 2 J-6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Crime No.1209/2013 379 IPC 3 J-6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Crime No.1615/2013 454 and 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 09.12.2013 by the Inspector of Police, J-6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, in Crime No.1616 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392 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 16.12.2013; the detenue made a representation to the detaining authority on 21.12.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 31.01.2014; remarks were called on 03.02.2014 and only on 14.02.2014 remarks were received and file was submitted on the same day; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 14.02.2014; on 18.02.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 14.02.2014 and it was sent to the detenue on 20.02.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 10 days between 03.02.2014, the date on which remarks were called for and 14.02.2014 the date on which remarks were received, excluding holidays. The said delay is not explained by the competent authority. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 10 days between 03.02.2014, the date on which remarks were called for and 14.02.2014 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 second respondent in Memo No.1967/BDFGISSV/2013 dated16.12.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue, namely Amudha W/o. Mohan, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the 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 detenue to claim anything before the Regular Court.