Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1419 (MAD)

M. Maheswari v. Secretary to Government, Chennai

2014-06-16

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner's husband is the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1434/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 26.10.2013 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 E-2 Royapettah Police Station Crime No.627/2011 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC @ 120(b), 137, 148, 341, 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC 2 E-2 Royapettah Police Station Crime No.852/2013 341, 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 22.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, E-2 Royapettah Police Station in Crime No.856/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 324, 384, 336, 307 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 26.10.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 08.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 19.11.2013; remarks were called on 20.11.2013 and only on 13.12.2013, remarks were received and file was submitted on 13.12.2013; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 13.12.2013; the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it on 18.12.2013 and rejected it on 20.12.2013 and it was sent to the detenu on 23.12.2013. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of seventeen (17) days between 20.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 13.12.2013, 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 seventeen (17) days between 20.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 13.12.2013, 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 Memo No.1434/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 26.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Manikandan @ Bonda Mani 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.