Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1434 (MAD)

S. Navamani v. Secretary to Government, Chennai

2014-06-16

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. 1370/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 17.10.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. H-8 Thiruvotriyur Police Station Crime No. 525 of 2013 457 & 380 IPC 2. E-3 Cholavaram Police Station Crime No. 283 of 2013 457 & 380 IPC 3. M-8, Sathangadu Police Station Crime No. 1789 of 2013 380 IPC 4. M-8, Sathangadu Police Station Crime No. 1776 of 2013 392 IPC 5. M-8, Sathangadu Police Station Crime No. 1796 of 2013 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 04.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law & Order, M-8, Sathangadu Police Station Crime No. 1793 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 & 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 17.10.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority dated 09.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 14.11.2013; remarks were called on 18.11.2013 and only on 30.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 02.01.2014; the Under Secretary dealt with it on 02.01.2014, the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 03.01.2014; on 08.01.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 27.01.2014. Rejection letter sent to the detenu on 27.01.2014. 6. Rejection letter sent to the detenu on 27.01.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than one month between 18.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 30.12.2013, 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 BDFGISSSV No. 1370 of 2013 dated 17.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Dilliraj S/o S.K. Selvaraj in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.