Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 803 (MAD)

V. Uma v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-04-01

M.DURAISWAMY, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The wife of the detenu has filed this Petition challenging the proceedings of the second respondent vide No.833/2013, dated 28.08.2013, in and by which, her husband Venkatesan has been detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-16 Nazarathpet Police Station Cr.No.517/2013 457, 380 IPC 2. T-5 Thiruverkadu Police Station Cr.No.1109/2013 Missing @ 379 IPC 3. T-16 Nazarathpet Police Station Cr.No.547/2013 379 IPC 4. T-5 Thiruverkadu Police Station Cr.No.1154/2013 392 IPC 5. T-16 Nazarathpet Police Station Cr.No.584/2013 454, 380 IPC 6. T-16 Nazarthpet Police Station Cr.No.588/2013 457, 380 IPC 7. T-16 Nazarthpet Police Station Cr.No.595/2013 454, 380 IPC 8. T-16 Nazarthpet Police Station Cr.No.620/2013 379 IPC 9. T-12 Poonamallee Police Station Cr.No.1631/2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 08.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-16, Nazarathpet Police Station in Crime No.635/2013 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds, he mainly argued on the question of delay in considering the petitioner's representation. He would contend that the inordinate delay of consideration of the representation would entitle the petitioner the relief prayed for in the present petition. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated in law. 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 28.08.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 11.09.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 17.09.2013 and on the same day, remarks were called on; But, remarks were received on 25.09.2013 and file was submitted on 28.09.2013, on which day itself, the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary have dealt with it; the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with the same on 30.09.2013 and rejected it on 03.10.2013. 6. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of 6 days between 17.09.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 25.09.2013, the date on which remarks were received, excluding 2 holidays i.e. on 21.09.2013 and 22.09.2013. 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 No.833/2013 dated 28.08.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Venkatesan in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from conducting cases effectively and shall not confer any right to the detenu before the Regular Court.