BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06/10/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR H.C.P.(MD).No.358 of 2007 R.Eswari ... Petitioner Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The District Magistrate District Collector, Sivagangai District. Sivagangai. ... Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.7 of 2006 dated 08.11.2006 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's son by name R.Senthil Kumar, S/o.M.P.Rajamani now confined in Central Prision, Madurai. !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Kannan ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.P.Samuelraj Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.K.MISRA, J)
Heard Mr.A.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr.S.P.Samuelraj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents and perused the records.
2. The order of detention on the ground that the detenu is a sand
offender as envisaged under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is in question.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that even though
earlier H.C.P.No.14 of 2007 filed on behalf of the detenu was rejected on merit,
the contention now raised was not available to be raised at that stage and
therefore on the basis of such new ground, the present H.C.P. is filed.
4.The only contention now raised is that a representation was made
to the State Government and nothing was indicated about the disposal of the
representation. On behalf of the detenu, necessary query was made relating to
disposal of such representation and by a reply dated 16.07.2007 it has been
indicated that such representation even though received by the State Government,
was not considered as the detaining authority had already rejected such
representation.
5.When a representation is made, it is the duty of the State
Government to consider the representation and merely because such representation
had been considered by the detaining authority is not a ground to ignore the
representation. It is, of course, true as indicated by such reply dated
16.07.2007 that subsequent representation made on behalf of the detenu had been
dealt with and the results have been communicated.
6.Be that as it may, once the earlier representation had been made
and was received, the State Government should have disposed of such
representation on merits instead of stating that such representation had been
considered by the detaining authority.
7. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
detention order passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.7 of 2006 dated
08.11.2006 is hereby quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith
unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
ssm
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2.The District Magistrate &
District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
Sivagangai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.