IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 24/01/2006 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Habeas Corpus Petition No.922 of 2005 Karuppayee ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.P.Prince Prem Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.K.Subramanian, Government Advocate. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the first respondent in connection with the order of first respondent dated 5.7.20 05 in 331/B.D.F.G.I.S.V/2005 detaining Dhanasekaran son of Chandran aged about 23 years as a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 82, set aside the same, direct the respondent to produce the body of the said detenu now lodged in the Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. :O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
. . . . .
Mother of the detenu challenges the detention order dated 05.07.2005 ,
detaining her son by name Dhanasekaran 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
Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other
connected materials, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the foremost,
submitted that even though the detenu was arrested in respect of two Crime
Numbers, namely, 694/05 and 825/05 on the file of M-4 Redhills Police Station,
the detaining Authority has taken note of Crime No.694 of 2005 alone and there
is no reference to the other Crime Number, viz., 825/05, which, according to
the learned counsel, shows the non-application of mind on the part of the
4. For this, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice
that Crime No.694 of 2005 relates to a graver offence, viz., punishable
Section 302 IPC. In so far as Crime No.825 of 2005 is concerned, it relates
to an offence under Section 201 IPC. Inasmuch as the Detaining Authority was
aware of the fact that the detenu was in remand in respect of a graver offence
and has passed the impugned detention order after satisfying himself with the
materials placed before him, we are of the view that there is no need to refer
the other Crime Number. We have also verified the Arrest Report and the
details regarding the offence committed in both the cases. We accept the
explanation offered by the learned Government Advocate and inasmuch as the
Detaining Authority was aware of the relevant fact that the detenu was in
remand in respect of a major crime, we do not find any merit in the contention
raised by the learned counsel.
5. It is contended that there is delay in disposal of the
representation of the detenu. The particulars furnished by the learned
Government Advocate show that the representation was received by the
Government on 16.08.2005, remarks were called for on 17.08.2005 and the same
were received on 24.08.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under
Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 25.08.2005. Finally, the Minster for
Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 29.08.2005. The Rejection Letter was
prepared on 02.09.2005 and the same was sent for service on the same date and
served to the detenu on 03.09.2005.
6. It is argued that the authorities are not justified in taking time
till 02.09.2005 for preparation of the Rejection Letter, when the Minister for
Prohibition and Excise passed orders even on 29.08.2005. Learned Government
Advocate has placed the records before us. A perusal of the same shows that
the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 29.08.2005. However,
the File was sent to the concerned Section only on 02.09.2005 and on the same
date, the Rejection letter was prepared and issued. On going through the
materials, we are satisfied that there is no undue delay as claimed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any
valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same
1. Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.
George, Chennai 600 009.
2. 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.