High Court Madras High Court

Rajeswari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 August, 2006

Madras High Court
Rajeswari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 August, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated:- 22.08.2006

Coram:-

The Honble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Honble Mr. Justice S.MANIKUMAR

Habeas Corpus Petition No.588 of 2006



Rajeswari                                ...  Petitioner
	
			Vs.

1.The  State of Tamil Nadu,
   rep. by its Secretary to Government,
   Prohibition and Excise  Department,
   Fort St. George, Chennai-9.  

2.The District Collector and
   District  Magistrate,
   Tiruvannamalai District,
   Tiruvannamalai.			.. Respondents

	Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records  in connection with the detention order passed in D.O.No.33/2006-C2 dated 27.05.2006 on  the file of second respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu Ravi S/o Muthukrishnan, who is now confined in Central Prison, Vellore before this court and set him at liberty.
  
 	For Petitioner	: Mr.V.R.Appaswamee
	For Respondents	: Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran
	                   Addl. Public Prosecutor


					O R D E R 

(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)

The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Ravi, 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 27.05.2006, 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 detenu, 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 detenu dated 01.06.2006 was received by the Government on 09.06.2006 and the remarks were received by the Government on the same day i.e. on 09.06.2006 and the File was submitted on 12.06.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day i.e. on 12.06.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 13.06.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 23.06.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on the same day i.e. on 23.06.2006 and served to him on 27.06.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 13.06.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 23.06.2006. 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 preparation of rejection letter is on the higher side and we hold that the said delay has prejudiced the detenu in disposal of his 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 detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.

raa

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, Thiruvannamalai District.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

(In duplicate for communication to detenu)

4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

[PRV]