IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 24/04/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.130 of 2006
K.Thenmozhi ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State rep. by:
The Inspector of Police,
T-13, Kundrathur Police Station,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
3. The Secretary to
the Government,
Prohibition and
Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records directing
the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Srinivasan S/o Kandan, male
aged about 27 years and now confined at Central Prison, Chennai, before this
Court and set him at liberty forthwith by setting aside the order of detention
bearing No.556/2005 dated 16.12.2005 on the file of the second respondent.
!For Petitioner : Mr.M.Udhayashankar
^For Respondents: Mr.Abudhukumar Rajarathinam
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu by name Seeni @
Srinivasan, who was detained as a “Goonda” as contemplated under Section 3(1)
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), by the impugned
detention order dated 16.12.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.
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 is enormous delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which
vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim,
learned Government Advocate has placed the details,
which show that the representation of the detenu dated 29.12.2005 was received
by the Government on 30.12.2005 and remarks were called for on 02.01.2006.
Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 06.01.2006 and the
File was submitted on 09.01.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under
Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on the same day i.e. on 09.01.2006 and
finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 10.01.2006.
The rejection letter was prepared on 13.01.2006 and the same was sent to the
detenu on 16 .0`1.2006 and served to him on 17.01.2006. If we exclude the
intervening holidays, we are of the view that the time taken for disposal of
the representation cannot be said to be either excessive or unreasonable.
Accordingly, we reject the said contention.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
pre-detention representation dated 08.11.2005 was not properly considered. A
perusal of the reply by the detaining authority shows that the said
representation was duly considered and rejected. Accordingly, we find no
force in the said contention.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention
to the English version of the remand extension order dated 01.12.2005 and the
Tamil version, which are available at pages 241 and 243 of the paper book
supplied to the detenu, has submitted that the remand order was not properly
translated. We verified both the English version and the Tamil version of the
remand extension order. We are satisfied that that there is no flaw in the
translation and the same has been correctly translated in Tamil. Accordingly,
we reject the said contention also.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the
representation dated 29.12.2005 was not properly considered by the Government.
According to him, though several grievances were expressed in the said
representation, the same was not considered properly. We verified the
representation dated 29.12.2005. Though it is stated that remand request was
not supplied inspite of specific request made by the detenu, as rightly
pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the copy of the remand request
has been enclosed along with the grounds of detention, which is available at
page 217 of the paper book. In such circumstances, it cannot be claimed that
the representation was not duly considered.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in
order to detain the detenu by passing detention order, his bail application
was delayed at the instance of the prosecution. In support of the above
claim, he produced the xerox copy of the orders passed by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge at Chenglepet. It shows that on four occasions, the
learned Public Prosecutor took time. It also shows that on 02.12.2005, no one
appeared even for the petitioner and because of the same, the learned Judge
adjourned the bail application to 08.12.2005. In any event, merely because
the Public Prosecutor prayed time and the matter was adjourned at his
instance, it cannot be construed that the time was taken only to pass the
detention order. The petitioner/detenu/accused should have persuaded the
Court for passing early orders in his bail application. Accordingly, we
reject the said contention also.
8. In the light of what is stated, we do not find any valid ground
for interference. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same
is dismissed.
raa
To
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8.
3. The Inspector of Police, T-13. Kundrathur Police Station, Chennai.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.
(In duplicate for communication to the petitioner)
5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.