In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 27/02/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATH KUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1213 of 2005
Nagalakshmi .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
2. The Secretary to Government
of Tamilnadu, Prohibition
and Excise Department
Fort St. George, Madras-9. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of writ of Habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce
the detenu, namely, Ravi S/o.Otcha Thevar, before this Court, who is detained
as per the order of detention passed by the first respondent in
C.O.C.No.32/2005 dated 29.10.2005 and confined at Central Prison, Trichy and
set him at liberty and further direction to call for the records relating to
the above said order and quash the same.
!For petitioner : Mr.K.Manivasakam
^For respondents : Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam
Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.)
The petitioner, wife of the detenu, who was detained as a bootlegger
under Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 29.10.2005, challenges
the same in this petition.
2. Heard Mr.Manivasakam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and also Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate (Crl.
Side).
3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 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 21.11.2005, remarks called
for on 22.11.2005, remarks received on 29.11.2005 and the file submitted for
orders on 30.11.2005, Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary dealt with the
same on 1.12.2005 and finally the Minister for Prohibition and Excise, passed
an order on 2.12.2005. Rejection letter was prepared on 7.12.2005, the same
was sent to the detenu on 8.12.2005 and served to the detenu on 10.12.2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Minister has
passed an order on 2.12.2005, there is no reason to take time till 7.12.2005
for preparation of the rejection letter. If the intervening holidays, namely,
3.12.2005 and 4.12.2005, are excluded, then we are of the view that the time
taken for preparation of the rejection letter comes within the permitted
period of three days. Accordingly, we find that there is no undue delay as
claimed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner next contended that
in the affidavit of the sponsoring authority dated 20.10.2005, there is no
reference to the remand extension order that was passed on 24.1 0.2005 and
according to him, in the absence of any material, the detaining authority is
not justified in passing the detention order. With regard to the said
contention, learned Government Advocate has informed this Court that the
sponsoring authority, by his affidavit dated 27.10.2005 (second affidavit) has
furnished those details and the same were taken into consideration by the
detaining authority. In the light of the same, in view of the fact that the
same is available in the records, we find no merit in the argument advanced.
5. Next, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing our
attention to the reference made in paragraph 3 (drug substance) and paragraph
4 (poisonous substance) would contend that in the light of the discrepancy and
in the absence of any proper explanation, the detention order is liable to be
interfered with. We are unable to accept the said contention, since, as
rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, what is stated in
paragraph 3 is the confessional statement of the accused/detenu and not the
observation of the detaining authority. On the other hand, in paragraph 4 of
the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu
is a bootlegger for possession and selling of arrack mixed with poisonous
substance in contravention of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act,
1937, thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
and public health. In the light of the fact that the earlier statement refers
to the confessional statement of the detenu and not that of the view of the
detaining authority, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that though
the bail petition of the detenu was dismissed on 17.10.2005, the detaining
authority has passed the detention order only on 29.10.2005. In such
circumstances, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu to come out on
bail. Here again, the perusal of paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention
makes it clear that the detaining authority was aware of all the relevant
materials, namely, that the detenu was remanded at Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli, by the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagapattinam,
upto 24.10.2005 and further extended till 7.11.2005. He was also aware of the
further information that the detenu has moved a bail application in
Crl.M.P.No.6051 of 2005 in respect of Crime No.1449 of 2005 and the same was
dismissed on 17.10.20 05 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagapattinam.
However, after taking note of all these aspects and considering the fact that
by filing another bail application, it would be possible for the detenu to
come out on bail and after finding that there is imminent possibility, in the
light of his past activities as well as if he comes out on bail, he will
indulge in such further activities, which will be prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order and public health, the detaining authority has
passed the impugned detention order. Here again, we find no error or
infirmity in such conclusion.
7. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no one
was intimated regarding the passing of the detention order. Learned
Government Advocate, by placing the records, informed this Court that the wife
of the detenu, namely, Nagalakshmi, who is the petitioner herein, was
intimated even on 30.10.2005 whereas the detention order was passed on
29.10.2005. In such circumstances, the said contention is also liable to be
rejected and it is, accordingly, rejected.
8. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any merit in
this petition. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
sra
To
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George,Chennai 9.
2. The District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Trichy.
(in duplicate for communication to detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
