Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1382 (MAD)

Rajesh v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is 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 BDFGISSV No. 138 of 2013, dated 09.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Guduvancheri Police Station Crime No. 465 of 2011 294(b), 363, 506(ii), 394 r/w 397 IPC @ 302 IPC 2. Guduvancheri Police Station Crime No. 385 of 2013 341, 294(b), 324 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 23.08.2013 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Guduvancheri Police Station in Crime No. 848 of 2013 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 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 09.10.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 17.10.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 23.10.2013; remarks were called on 24.10.2013 and only on 05.11.2013, remarks were received and file was submitted on 06.11.2013; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 08.11.2013; the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it on the same day and rejected it on 08.11.2013 and it was sent to the detenu on 11.11.2013. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of eight (8) days between 24.10.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 05.11.2013, 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 eight (8) days between 24.10.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 05.11.2013, 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 BDFGISSV No. 138 of 2013 dated 09.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Rajesh in this case is 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 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 detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.