IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 14/02/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1170 of 2005
Palanisamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector
and District Magistrate
Tiruchirappalli District
Tiruchirappalli.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.K. Manivasakam
For Respondents : Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam,
Government Advocate.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of
writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu, viz.,
Sakthivel, S/o. Chinnappan before this Court, who is detained as per the
order of detention passed by the first respondent in Cr.M.P.No.58/05 dated
30.09.2005 and confined at Central Prison, Trichy and set him at liberty and
further direction for call for the records relating to the above said order
and quash the same.
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
Son-in-law of the detenu challenges the detention order dated
30.09.2005, detaining his father-in-law by name Sakthivel as Boot-legger as
contemplated under Section 2(b) of 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
Government Advocate 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 Government Advocate show that
the representation of the detenu dated 29.10.2005 was received by the
Government on 08.11.2005, remarks were called for on 09.11.2005 and the same
were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 17.11.2005 . Thereafter, the
File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 17.11.2005.
Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 18.11.2005.
However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 29.11.2005. The said
letter was sent to the Central Prison for service on 30.11.2005 and served to
the detenu on 02.12.2005.
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 18.11.2005, there is no reason for taking time till
29.11.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper
explanation, even if we exclude the intervening holidays on Saturday and
Sunday as well as the public 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. Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
(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.