IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 07/08/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.MANIKUMAR
H.C.P. No.540 of 2006
Manoharan .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector
and District Magistrate
Tiruvannamalai District
Tiruvannamalai. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenue viz.,
Tmt. Shanthi, wife of Manoharan, who is now detained in Special Prison for
women, Vellore in pursuance of the detention order passed by the second
respondent on 26.04.2006 in No.27/2006-C2 before this Court, call for the
records, set aside the order and set the detenue at liberty forthwith.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran
^For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner, who is the husband of the detenue by name Shanthi, who
is detained as a “Bootlegger” 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 26.04.2006,
challenges the same in this Petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor 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 detenue,
which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above
claim, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the details, which show
that the representation of the detenue dated 05.05.2006 was received by the
Government on 09.05.2006 and the remarks were called for on 10.05.2006 and the
representation of the detenue was received from the Government on 12.05.2006
and the parawar remarks were called for from the Sponsoring authority on the
same day i.e. on 12.05.2006 and the remarks were received from the sponsoring
authority on 18.05.2006. Thereafter, the remarks were received by the
Government on 19.05.2006 and the File was submitted on 22.05.2006 and the same
was dealt with by the Under Secretary on the same day i.e. 22.05.2006 and by
the Deputy Secretary on 23.05.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition
and Excise passed orders on 24.05.200 6. The rejection letter was prepared on
the same day i.e. on 24.05.2 006 and the same was sent to the detenue on
26.05.2006 and served to her on 29.05.2006. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, though parawar remarks were called for
from the sponsoring authority on 12.05.2006, the remarks were received from
the sponsoring authority by the Collectorate only on 18.05.2006 and there is
no explanation at all for sending the remarks to the Collectorate belatedly.
In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned even after excluding
the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the time taken for sending
the remarks to the Collectorate is on the higher side and we hold that the
said delay has prejudiced the detenue in disposal of her representation. On
this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.
4. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenue is directed to be set
at liberty forthwith from the custody unless she is required in some other
case or cause.
gms
To
1.The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector
and District Magistrate
Tiruvannamalai District
Tiruvannamalai.