Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1586 (MAD)

Devi v. Secretary to Government, Chennai

2014-06-19

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of 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.1663/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 19.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 C1 Flower Bazaar Police Station Crime No.725/2013 379 IPC 2 C3 Seven Wells Police Station Crime No.1633/2013 454 & 380 IPC 3 C2 Elephantgate Police Station Crime No.931/2013 379 IPC 4 C2 Elephantgate Police Station Crime No.1696/2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered by the Inspector of Police, C2 Elephant Gate Police Station in Crime No.1769/2013 for offences under Sections 341,294(b), 336, 427, 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 19.11.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 30.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 13.12.2013; remarks were called on 10.12.2013 and only on 08.01.2014, remarks were received and file was submitted on 29.01.2014; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on the same day; the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it on 30.01.2014 and rejected it on 24.01.2014 and it was 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 Twenty (20) days between 10.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 08.01.2014, 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 Twenty (20) days between 10.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 08.01.2014, 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.1663/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 19.11.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Murali @ Ottagamurali in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.