In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 18/04/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR
HCP No.94 of 2006
Palanisamy .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary
Prohibition & Excise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate &
District Collector
Coimbatore 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. P. Venkatasubramanian
for Mr. C. Ramkumar
For respondents : Mr. Abudukumar Rajaratrhinam
Govt., Advocate (Crl.)
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,)
The petitioner by name Palanisamy, challenges the impugned order
of detention dated 16.01.2006, detaining his brother Subramani @
Kaanaan, as “Boot-Legger” under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 198
2 (in short “Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982”).
2. Heard both sides.
3. Even at the foremost the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there was inordinate delay in considering the
representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention.
With reference to the said claim the learned Government Advocate has
placed details, which show that the representation of the detenue
dated 21.01.2006 was received by the Government on 24.01.2006 and remarks were called on 25.01.2006, reminder was sent on 0
remarks were received on 07.02.2006. After receipt of the remarks, the
same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 0
8.02.2006; order was passed by the Minister for Prohibition and
Excise on 10.02.2006, rejection letter was prepared on 17.02.2006; the
same was sent to the detenu on the same day itself and the rejection
letter was served on the detenu on 20.02.2006. As rightly pointed out
though the concerned Minister has passed an order on 10.02.2006,
there is no explanation or reason for not forwarding the same to the
detenu till 20.02.2006. In the absence of any explanation, we hold that the delay between 10.02.2006 and 20.02.2006 is enor
ground, the impugned detention order is vitiated and the same is quashed; accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order o
impugned in the petition is set aside and the detenu is directed to be
set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in
connection with any other case.
Kh
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Prohibition & Excise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate &
District Collector
Coimbatore District.
3. The Director General of Police
Chennai 4.
4. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.