Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1372 (MAD)

Pichaiammal v. Secretary to the Govt. Chennai

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 D.O.No.88/2013-C2 dated 22.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Tiruvannamalai Town Crime Police Station, Crime No.233 of 2013 Sections 457 and 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 24.09.2013 by the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Crime Police Station in Crime No.265 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 392 r/w 397 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, 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 22.10.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, the detenu made a representation to the authorities concerned, which was received on 28.11.2013, for which the remarks called on 29.11.2013 were received on 06.12.2013. On submission of the file on 06.12.2013, 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 10.12.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 16.12.2013, which was sent to the detenu on 17.12.2013. 6. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of 4 days, namely, between 29.11.2013 and 06.12.2013 (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. 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 Saavi Elumalai @ Elumalai, S/o.Late Mariyappa Naidu, made in D.O.No.88/2013-C2 dated 22.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Vellore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.