IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27/06/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN
H.C.P.No.338 of 2006
Ghouse Basha Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying
to issue a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the records in connection with
the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 11.02.2006 in Memo
No.50/BDFGISV/2006 against the petitioner Ghouse Basha S/o. Hussain aged
about 58 years, who is now confined at Central Prison, Chennai and set aside
the same and produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.
!For Petitioner : Ms.V.Vanitha
^For Respondents: Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner, by name Ghouse Basha, who is detained as a ” 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), by the impugned detention order dated 11.02.2 006, challenges the same
in this Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor of the respondents.
3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
there was delay in disposal of the representation dated 14.02.2006. With
reference to the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor furnished details,
which show that the representation was received by the Government on
15.02.2006, remarks were called for on 16.02.2006 and received on 24.02.2006.
The file was dealt with by the Under Secretary on 27.02.2006 and Deputy
Secretary on 28.02.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise
passed an order on 01.03.2006. Thereafter, rejection letter was prepared on
03.03.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 06.03.2006 and served to the
detenu on 07.03 .2006.
4. By pointing out that though the remarks were called for on
16.02.2006, the same were received by the Government only on 24.02.2006,
learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Collectorate and the
sponsoring authority were not justified in taking eight days time in sending
the remarks.
5. The further particulars furnished by the Additional Public
Prosecutor show that the request for calling the remarks was received by the
Collectorate on 20.02.2006, in turn, the collectorate called for details from
the sponsoring authority on 21.02.2006 and remarks were received by the
Collectorate on 23.02.2006 thereafter the same was sent to the Government on
24.02.2006. In the light of the details furnished, we are satisfied that
there was no let up at any stage and there is no delay as claimed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, we reject the said
contention.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention
order was not intimated to the family members. As against this, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor by placing records informed us that the wife of
the detenu was intimated regarding passing of the detention order on
12.02.2006. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.
7. Except the above contentions, no other contention was raised. We
do not find any valid ground for interference. Consequently, the Habeas
Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
mmi
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Chennai.
(in duplicate for communication to the detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.