IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.2.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI
H.C.P.No.1762 of 2007
Sasikala .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu
rep. by its Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector
and District Magistrate
Kancheepuram.
3. The Inspector of Police
Chengalpattu Enforcement of
Prohibition Division
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango
Addl. Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)
The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against Murugan, husband of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Bootlegger and he has to be detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).
2.1. The order of detention dated 28.10.2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case said to have taken place on 11.10.2007, when the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Chengalpattu along with his police party conducted prohibition raid at Karunilam Village. According to the police, the detenu was found selling diluted rectified spirit with noxious smell. He was apprehended on the spot and the contraband was seized. Samples were sent for chemical analysis. A case was registered in Crime No.223 of 2007 under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act on the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Chengalpattu and the detenu was remanded. The chemical analysis report reveals that the rectified spirit was mixed with 8.3% mg w/v of atropine a poisonous alcolaide.
2.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of the six adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz., Crime Nos.108, 358 and 575 of 2005, and 384 of 2006 on the file of Maraimalai Nagar Police Station and Crime Nos.137 of 2006 and 172 of 2007 on the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Chengalpattu, all for the offences punishable under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.
2.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and public health, passed the impugned order.
3. Challenging the said detention, the wife of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 28.10.2007 in his office Ref.No.BDFGISSV.No.71/2007 against the detenu, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and to set him at liberty.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
5. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is considerable delay in considering the representation and the same has rendered the detention illegal.
6. We have perused the details furnished with regard to consideration of the representation of the petitioner by the respondents. The impugned order of detention came to be passed on 28.10.2007. A copy of the representation on behalf of the detenu was sent to the second respondent on 5.11.2007 and the same was received on 9.11.2007. The remarks were received on 14.11.2007 (10.11.2007 and 11.11.2007 are public holidays) and the file was submitted to for the consideration of the Under Secretary on 15.11.2007. The file was considered by the Under Secretary as well as by the Additional Secretary on 15.11.2007 and the same was circulated to the Hon’ble Minister on 16.11.2007. The Hon’ble Minister rejected the representation on 21.11.2007 (17.11.2007 and 18.11.2007 are public holidays) and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 22.11.2007 and was served on the detenu on 23.11.2007. At no stage of consideration of the representation, we find any undue delay.
For the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss this habeas corpus petition. No costs.
sasi
To:
1. The State of Tamilnadu
rep. by its Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector
and District Magistrate
Kancheepuram.
3. The Inspector of Police
Chengalpattu Enforcement of
Prohibition Division
Kancheepuram District.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court,
Madras.