Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 928 (MAD)

Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-04-15

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J., 1. The petitioner is the husband of detenue. The detenue has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.257/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 20.06.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station Crime No.617 of 2010 Sections 454 & 380 IPC 2. T-14, Mangadu Police Station Crime No.709 of 2013 Sections 457 & 380 IPC 3. T-15, SRMC Police Station Crime No.533 of 2013 Sections 454 & 380 IPC 4. T-15, SRMC Police Station Crime No.594 of 2013 Section 392 IPC 5. T-13, Kundrathur Police Station Crime No.839 of 2013 Section 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 31.05.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-15, SRMC Police Station in Crime No.609 of 2013 for offences under Sections 452, 392, 336, 506(ii) IPC row 397 IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focussed his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation dated 03.10.2013, which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, on this sole ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 20.06.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, the detenu made a representation dated 03.10.2013 to the authorities concerned, which was received on 07.10.2013, for which remarks called on 07.10.2013 were received on 21.10.2013. On submission of the file on 24.10.2013, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 27.10.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 31.10.2013. 6. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of 8 days, namely, between 07.10.2013 and 21.10.2013 (excluding holidays falling on 12.10.2013, 13.10.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 31.10.2013. 6. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of 8 days, namely, between 07.10.2013 and 21.10.2013 (excluding holidays falling on 12.10.2013, 13.10.2013. 14.10.2013, 16.10.2013, 19.10.2013 and 20.10.2013), which would definitely cause great prejudice to the detenue and amount to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and is vitiated. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenue Manjula, W/o.Ravi, made in Memo No.257/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 20.06.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenue, who is detained at the Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case.