In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 30/06/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN
Habeas Corpus Petition No.339 of 2006
Mrs. Malliga .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Secretary to the Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector cum
District Magistrate
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr. A. Mohan
For respondents : Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.)
The petitioner by name Malliga, challenges the impugned order
of detention dated 07.03.2006, detaining her son as “Goonda” 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 (in short”Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.
3. At the foremost, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation of
the detenu dated 13.04.2006. The particulars furnished by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor show that the representation of the detenu dated
13.04.2006 was received on 19.04.2006; remarks were called for on 20.04.2006;
remarks were received on 27.04.2006; file was dealt with by Under Secretary on
28.04.2006; Deputy Secretary on 02.05.2006 and finally, the Minister for
Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 03.05.2006; the rejection letter was
prepared on 10.05.2006; rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 12.05.2006
and the same was served on him on 16.05.2006. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that though the Minister has passed an order on
03.05.2006, there is no reason for the delay till 10.05.2006 in preparing the
rejection letter. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that 06
.05.2006 and 07.05.2006 were holidays being Saturday and Sunday and 0
8.05.2006 was declared as holiday due to General Election. If we exclude
those three days, we are of the view that the rejection letter was prepared
within the permissible time limit of three days. We accept the explanation
offered by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and reject the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that in view of various infirmities found both in the English
and Tamil versions in respect of mentioning the correct police station with
reference to crime number concerned, the ultimate order passed by the
detaining authority is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application
of mind. In support of the above contention, learned counsel referred to
pages 433, 435, 77, 187, 195 and 197 of the paper book supplied to the detenu.
Page 433 contains remand order dated 01.02.2006 with reference to Crime No.37
of 2006 of Otteri Police Station. On the other hand, in the translated Tamil
version, which is available at page 435, though the crime number has been
correctly stated as 37 of 2006, the name of police station is mentioned as
Guduvancheri Police Station instead of Otteri Police Station. According to
the learned counsel, similar mistake occurred in pages 77, 187, 195 and 197 of
the paper book.
5. It is also brought to our notice that the said
discrepancies were represented to the detaining authority, who, while sending
reply dated 04.03.2006, has stated that the detenu Sakthivel @ Sakthi involved
in Crime No.37 of 2006 on the file of Otteri Police Station was arrested by
the Inspector of Police, Guduvancheri and remanded to judicial custody. In
the counter affidavit the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Kancheepuram has stated,
“10. … I submit that the Otteri Police Station lies within the
jurisdiction of the Inspector of Police, Guduvancheri Circle. I submit that
as such, there is no question of different police stations effecting the
arrest of the detenu at the same place and time in different Police Station in
different crime numbers, when the Inspector of Police Guduvancheri Circle has
effected arrest of the detenu in the ground case and in respect of the adverse
cases also. …”
6. It is clear from the above explanation that Otteri Police
Station lies within the jurisdiction of the Inspector of Police, Guduvancheri
Circle. Though the crime number pertains to Otteri Police Station, in view of
the fact that the Inspector of Police, Guduvancheri Circle has the
jurisdiction over the Otteri Police Station, some of the documents refer the
name of the Inspector of Police, Guduvancheri, who is competent to investigate
the matter in issue. In the light of the same, we are satisfied that there is
no error or defect as claimed by the counsel for petitioner. Accordingly, we
reject the said contention also.
Except the above mentioned contentions, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has not pointed out any other error or infirmity. Under
these circumstances, we do not find any ground for interference.
Consequently, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Kh
To
1. The Secretary to the Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector cum
District Magistrate
Kancheepuram District.