Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the Detention order Memo No. 1335.BDFGISSV/2013, dated 14.10.2013 passed by the second respondent under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Ramaraj, S/o. Krishnamoorthy, aged about 26 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the detenu Ramaraj, S/o. Krishnamoorthy, aged about 26 years at liberty.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V. DHANAPALAN, J.)
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a “Goonda” under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the second respondent passed in Memo No. 1335.BDFGISSV/2013, dated 14.10.2013
2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:
S. No.
Police Station and Crime No.
Sections of Law
1.
K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station, Crime No. 1513/2013
399 IPC
2.
F-5 Choolaimedu Police Station, Crime No. 906/2013
392 IPC
3.
K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station, Crime No. 1236/2013
379 IPC
The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 07.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, F-5 Choolaimedu Police Station, in Crime No. 1295/2013 for offences under Sections 354, 323, 294(b), 427, 307, 336 and 506(ii) IPC.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments on the question of delay in consideration of the petitioner's representation, which has not been properly explained by the respondents. Therefore, it would vitiate the rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
4. We have heard Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records.
5. On a perusal of the list informing the course of consideration of the petitioner's representation, it is seen that the Detention Order was passed on 14.10.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority dated Nil and it was received by the competent authority on 28.10.2013; remarks were called on 29.11.2013 and only on 18.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 08.01.2014; the Under Secretary dealt with it dated Nil, the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 08.01.2014; on 09.01.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejection letter prepared on 13.01.2014 and rejected it on 18.01.2014 and it was sent to the detenu dated Nil.
6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 10 days between 29.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 18.12.2013, the date on which remarks were received, excluding holidays. The said delay is not explained by the competent authority. Therefore, it is apparent that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in consideration of the petitioner's representation and the same contradicts the requirement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the consequence thereof is in infringement of the right of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No. 1335.BDFGISSV/2013, dated 14.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely, Ramaraj, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.