IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 01/08/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.MANIKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.511 of 2006
Rudhrakotti ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Chennai 600 008.
2. Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 9.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison
Chennai. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce detenu
Viji @ Vijayaraghavan, S/o.Rudhrakotti, bodily before Court, to set him at
liberty forthwith from Central Prison, Chennai, by calling for the records and
setting aside the order of detention in NO.60/ BDSFGISV/2006 dated 02.03.2006
passed by the first respondent.
!For Petitioner : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik
^For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran
Additional Public Prosecutor.
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner herein challenges the detention order dated 02.03.2006,
detaining his son by name Viji @ Vijayaraghavan as Goonda as contemplated
under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers
and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu.
The particulars furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor show
that the representation was received by the Government on 20.03.2006. File
was submitted on the next day, ie., on 21.03.2006. Under Secretary dealt with
the File on the same day and the Deputy Secretary on 22.03.2006. Finally, the
Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23.03.2006. However, the
Rejection letter was prepared only on 10.04.2006, sent to the detenu for
service on 11.04.2006 and served to him on 12.04.2006.
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
though the competent authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and Excise,
passed orders on 23.03.2006, there is no reason for taking time till
10.04.2006 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper
explanation, even if we exclude the intervening holidays, we hold that the
delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to the detenu in
considering his representation effectively. On this ground, the impugned
order of detention is quashed.
5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or
cause.
JI.
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Chennai.
(In duplicate for communication to detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order),
Fort St.George,
Chennai 9.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.