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.1146 of 2005
Madhan @ Madhanagopal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai City
Egmore, Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.N. Duraisamy
for Mr. K.P. Kesavan
For Respondents : Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam,
Government Advocate.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of
writ of habeas corpus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent made in
No.115/2005 dated 21.03.2005, quash the same and directing the respondents to
produce the body of the detenu Madhan @ Madhanagopal, presently detained /
lodged in Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner in this petition, who was detained as Goonda by the
order of the second respondent dated 21.03.2005 in No.115/2005 under Section
3(2) 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), 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 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 23.06.2005 was received by the
Government on 24.06.2005, remarks were called for on 27.06.2005 and the same
were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 05.07.2005 . Thereafter, the
File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 06.07.2005.
Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 07.07.2005.
However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 15.07.2005. The said
letter was sent to the Central Prison for service on 18.07.2005 and served to
the detenu on 19.07.2005.
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 07.07.2005, there is no reason for taking time till
15.07.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper
explanation, even if we exclude the intervening holidays on Saturday and
Sunday, 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 Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai City Egmore, Chennai 600 009. 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.