Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1502 (MAD)

Rajagopal v. Commissioner of Police

2014-06-17

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother 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 first respondent passed in BDFGISSV No. 1684 of 2013 dated 22.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-1 Ambathur Police Station Crime No. 1286 of 2013 302 IPC 2. T-2 Ambathur Estate Police Station Crime No. 1471 of 2013 341, 294(b), 384, 506 (ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 18.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-2 Ambathur Estate Police Station in Crime No. 1476 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 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 22.11.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 16.12.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 17.12.2013; remarks were called on the same day and only on 24.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 26.12.2013; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 27.12.2013; on 02.01.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 10.01.2014 and it was sent to the detenu on the same day. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than five (5) days between 17.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 24.12.2013, 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 five (5) days between 17.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 24.12.2013, 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 first respondent in BDFGISSV No. 1684 of 2013 dated 22.11.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Rajarathinam @ Rathinamin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution 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.