IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 31/01/2006 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1091 of 2005 G. Arul. .. Petitioner. -Vs- 1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai-9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8. .. Respondents. Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records of 2nd respondent order No. 427/BDFGISV/2005 under Section 2 (f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 dated 25-8-2005 and quash the same, thereby direct the detenu G. Shanmugam, son of Gajarajan, detained at Central Prison at Chennai to be produced before this Court and set him at liberty. !Mr. P. Arul:- For petitioner. ^Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, Govt., Advocate (Crl.Side):- For Respondents. :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,)
Petitioner, brother of the detenu-G. Shanmugam, who was detained as a Goonda
under Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 25-8-2005, challenges
the same in this petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government
Advocate for respondents.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is
delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The particulars
furnished by the learned Government Advocate would show that the
representation of the detenu dated 5-9-2005 was received by the Government
along with their remarks on 12-9-2005. Thereafter, the File was submitted on
13-9-2005 and dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on
the same day i.e., on 13-9-2 005. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition
passed an order on 14-9-2 005. However, rejection letter was prepared only on
23-9-2005 and thereafter the same was sent to the Superintendent, Central
Prison for service 23-9-2005 itself and the rejection letter was served on the
detenu on 24-9-2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, though the competent authority, namely, Minister for Prohibition
has passed an order on 14-9-2005, there is no explanation for taking time till
23-9-2005 for preparation of rejection letter. Even if we exclude the
intervening holidays namely, 17-9-2005 and 18-9-2005, we are of the view that
the time taken by the officers for preparation of the rejection letter is on
the higher side which caused prejudice to the detenu in considering his
representation. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to
be quashed.
4. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of
detention is set aside and the detenu-Shanmugam is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with
any other case.
Index:- Yes.
Internet:- Yes
R.B.
To:-
1. The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, St. George Fort,
Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8.
3. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order), Chennai-9.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai
(in duplicate for communication to the detenu).
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.