Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1476 (MAD)

Suresh v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-06-17

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu and he has been branded as a "Bootlegger" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.18/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 12.11.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases : S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 Thiruvallur PEW Cr.No.558/2013 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) TNP Act Transporting r/w 5 & 6 of R.S. Rules, 2000 and 328 IPC. 2 Sevvapet Police Station Cr.No.302/2013 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A),4(1) (H) of TNP Act (Transporting) r/w 7,13 & 14 of T.N.RS. Rules, 2000 and 420, 468, 471, 473, 475 & 328 IPC. 3 R.K.Pet PEW Cr.No.640/2013 4(1)(aa) r/w 4(1-A) of TNP Act The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 28.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, PEW Thiruvallur in PEW Thiruvallur Crime No.640/2013 for offences under Sections 4(1) (a), 4(1-A) Transporting TNP Act r/w 5&6 of R.S. Rules, 2000 and 328 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 12.11.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority dated 22.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 29.11.2013; remarks were called on 02.12.2013 and only on 30.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 02.01.2014; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 03.01.2014; on 10.01.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 24.01.2014 and the rejected letter sent to the detenu on 28.01.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 20 days between 02.12.2013, 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. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 20 days between 02.12.2013, 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.18/2013 dated 12.11.2013is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Suresh S/o Natarajan, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.