Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1488 (MAD)

Kaliyammal v. Secretary to Government

2015-03-17

A.SELVAM, T.MATHIVANAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1/NSA/2014, dated 28.07.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Sivakumar, Son of Chithiran and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith. 2. The Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases: (i) Crime No.61 of 2011, Kamuthi Police Station registered under Sections 147, 341 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. (ii) Crime No.7 of 2013, Abiramam Police Station registered under Sections 143, 188 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 23.07.2014, one Bose, Village Administrative Officer, Kamuthi Group as complainant has lodged a complaint in Kamuthi Police Station against the detenu and others and the same has been registered in Crime No.175 of 2014 under Sections 143, 188 and 153(A) of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke National Security Act against the detenu. 4. The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein after perusing the averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is in the habit of committing crimes one after another and consequently passed the impugned detention order under the National Security Act and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu as petitioner. 5. 5. On the side of the respondents 1,2,4 and 5, a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended inter alia to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and on 23.07.2014 the detenu and others have raised slogans against a particular community and thereby created law and order problem and under the said circumstances a case has been registered in Crime No.175 of 2014 under Sections 143, 188 and 153-A of the Indian Penal Code and further the detenu has already involved in two adverse cases and on the basis of attitude of the detenu, the second respondent has rightly passed the detention order and the same is not liable to be quashed and altogether the present Habeas Corpus Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the counter filed on the side of the third respondent, it is averred that on the side of the detenu a representation has been submitted to the State Government on 01.08.2014 and the same has reached the Central Government on 30.09.2014 and therefore the present Habeas Corpus Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the detenu totally three representations have been submitted, but the representation dated 31.07.2014 alone has been considered and with regard to remaining representations no mention has been made in the counter filed on the side of the respondents 1,2,4 and 5 and on that ground alone, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 8. The learned State Public Prosecutor has contended that the representations submitted on the side of the detenu are duly disposed of without delay and further the detaining authority after considering the fact that the detenu is in the habit of committing crimes one after another, has rightly passed the detention order and the same is not liable to be quashed. 9. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the third respondent has simply reiterated the averments made in the counter to the effect that even though on the side of the detenu a representation has been submitted on 01.08.2014 to the State Government, the same has reached the Central Government on 30.09.2014. 10. 9. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the third respondent has simply reiterated the averments made in the counter to the effect that even though on the side of the detenu a representation has been submitted on 01.08.2014 to the State Government, the same has reached the Central Government on 30.09.2014. 10. On the side of the respondents 1,2,4 and 5, a proforma has been submitted with regard to representation dated 31.07.2014, wherein it has been clearly stated that in between Column Nos.7 to 9, only two clear working days are available. Even assuming without conceding that such delay can be ignored, the Court has to look into the other two representations submitted on the side of the detenu. 11. It is an admitted fact that a representation dated 30.07.2014 has been submitted to the detaining authority and the same has not been disposed of. Further a representation dated 01.08.2014 has been submitted to the Central Government through State Government and the same has reached the Central Government on 30.09.2014 and in that process two months delay has occurred and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents 1,2,4 and 5 and that itself would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 12. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1/NSA/2014, dated 28.07.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Sivakumar, Son of Chithiran at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.