IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 20/03/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1326 of 2005
Santhosh ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City.
2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Salem. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the
proceedings of the first respondent in CMP No.30/Goonda/Salem City/2005 dated
27.11.2005 against the petitioner's husband Perumal @ Kattaiyan Perumal S/o
Sengoda Nadar aged about 42 years, and quash the same and consequently direct
the respondents herein to produce the detenu, who has been now detained under
Act 14/82 in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty.
!For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajan
For Respondents: Mr.Abudhukumar Rajarathinam
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
: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 Perumal @
Kattaiyan Perumal, who was 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 27.11.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Government Advocate 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 Government Advocate has placed the details, which show that the
representation of the detenu dated 7.12.2005 was received by the Government on
14.12.2005 along with the remarks and the reminder and the remarks were
received by the Government on the same date i.e. on 14.12.2005. Thereafter,
the File was submitted on 16.12.2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under
Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 19.12.2005 and finally, the Minister for
Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 20.12.2005. The rejection letter was
prepared on 27.12.2005 and the same was sent to the detenu on 28.12.2005 and
served to him on 30.12.2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an
order on 20.12.2005, there is no explanation at all for taking time for
preparation of rejection letter till 27.12.2005. 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.
Index: No.
Internet: Yes
raa
To
1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu,
Prohibition and ExciseDepartment,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
(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.