Allowed

A.Rajammal v. the Secretary

Madras HC12 Apr 2011HCP(MD)/56/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court quashed a detention order due to an unexplained 4-day delay in considering the detenu's representation, violating Article 22(5). The petition filed by the detenu's wife under Article 226 was allowed, and the detainee was directed to be released forthwith.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.71 of 2010 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

A.Rajammal Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.04.2011

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶7

H.C.P.(MD) No.56 of 2011

¶8

A.Rajammal .. Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Home Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶11

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Karivalamvanthanallur Police Station, Karivalamvanthanallur, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent herein in order No.M.H.S.Confdl.No.71/2010 dated 02.12.2010 and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Ayanraj son of Mariappan detained as Goonda, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.C.Baskaran

¶15

For respondents : Mr.Daniel Manoharan, Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by G.M.AKBAR ALI,J.)

¶18

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely , Ayanraj. Challenging an Order of Detention made by the 2^nd respondent in M.H.S.Confdl.No.71 of 2010 on 02.12.2010 branding the detenu as a “Goonda” under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), this Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶19

2.Advancing the arguments assailing the order of the detention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that there are unexplained delay of 4 days in considering the representation of the detenu and therefore, the detention order is vitiated.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

¶22

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

¶23

4.It is seen from the Proforma produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor before this Court that the representation of the detenu was received on 17.02.2011, remarks were called for on 18.02.2011 but remarks were received only on 25.02.2011. Thus, there was a delay of 7 days, out of which, 3 days happened to be holidays and in effect, there was a delay of 4 days in considering the representation, which remains unexplained.

¶24

5.Such unexplained delay in considering the representation would amount to deprivation of making effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.

¶25

6.Accordingly, the detention order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.71 of 2010 dated 02.12.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶26

¶27

ASST REGISTRAR ( CRL SIDE )

/TRUE COPY/

SUB ASST REGISTRAR

nbj

1.THE SECRETARY, THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU,

¶33

HOME PROHIBITION AND EXCISE (XIV) DEPARTMENT,

¶34

SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI.

¶35

2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,

¶36

TIRUNELVELI,TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶37

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶38

KARIVALAMVANTHANALLUR POLICE STATION,

¶39

KARIVALAMVANTHANALLUR, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶40

THE SUPERINTENDE OF CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI

¶41

THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

¶42

PUBLIC (LAW AND ORDER) FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI

¶43

THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶44

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶45

1CC TO MR. C. BASKARAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 13712:

¶46

DM:2011:MAY:18::

¶47

H.C.P.(MD)No.56 of 2011 12.04.2011

¶48

2P:8C::

¶49

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Rajammal v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Rajammal v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Vs V.S. Kuppanna Gounter

Pappathi Ammal Vs Superintendent of Police

Ilayaraja Vs the Inspector of Police

Jeyanthi Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Paneerselvam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Arokia Selvi Vs Incharge Commissioner of