Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1487 (MAD)

M. Selvi v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-06-17

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenu is the husband of the petitioner. 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.699/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 14.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 T-4 Maaduravoyal Police Station, Cr.No.3087/2005 379 IPC 2 M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Cr. No.466/2012 379 IPC 3 T-16, Nazarathpet Police Station, Cr.No.559/2013 392 IPC 4 T-5 Thiruveerkadu Police Station, Cr.No.1131/2013 Missing @ 454, 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 20.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Thiruverkadu Police Station in Crime No.1174/2012 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 and 506(ii) of 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 14.08.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 02.12.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 09.12.2013; remarks were called on 9.12.2013 and only on 9.1.2014 remarks were received and file was submitted on the same day; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 09.01.2014 and on 17.01.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 20 days between 09.01.2014, the date on which remarks were called for and 09.12.2013, 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 09.01.2014, the date on which remarks were called for and 09.12.2013, 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 inMemo No.699/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 14.08.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Murugan, S/o. Angamuthu, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.