Allowed

Manavaruthal v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC9 Jun 2014HCP/2248/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the mother of a detenu detained as a goonda, the High Court quashed the detention order due to a nine-day delay in the state authorities processing the detenu's representation, holding it violated Article 22(5) despite the detenu facing serious criminal charges.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 25.08.2013 is quashed; the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required for another case.

Manavaruthal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 09.06.2014

¶3

Coram :-

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Habeas Corpus Petition No.2248 of 2013

¶5

Manavaruthal ...Petitioner

¶6

-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Govt.,
Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Thiruvannamalai District.
Thiruvannamalai. ...Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the 2^nd respondent, pertaining to the detention order made in D.O.No.77/2013-C2 dated 25.08.2013, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the detenu Suryaprakash, S/o.Vedi, male, aged 23 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

The petitioner is the mother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2^nd respondent passed in D.O.No.77/2013-C2 dated 25.08.2013.

¶9

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

¶10

The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-

¶11

Sr.No.	Police Station and Crime No.	Sections of Law
1.	T.V.Malai Taluk Police	Sections 147, 148, 448,
	Station	427, 324, 323, 307 IPC
	Crime No.32 of 2011	and 3 of PPD Act
2.	T.V.Malai East Police Station	Sections 147, 148, 341,
	Crime No.691 of 2011	302 r/w 149 IPC

¶12

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 08.08.2013 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station in Crime No.398 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 392, r/w 397 IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.

¶13

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focussed his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation dated 09.10.2013, which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, on this sole ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶14

We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.

¶15

On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 25.08.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, the detenu made a representation dated 09.10.2013 to the authorities concerned, which was received on 11.10.2013, for which the remarks called on 11.10.2013 were received on 28.10.2013. On submission of the file on 01.11.2013, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 04.11.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 05.11.2013, which was sent to the detenue on 06.11.2013.

¶16

In this whole process, there occurred a delay of 9 days, namely, between 11.10.2013 and 28.10.2013 (excluding holidays falling on 12^th , 13^th , 14^th , 16^th , 19^th , 20^th , 26^th and 27^th of October, 2013, which would definitely cause great prejudice to the detenu and amount to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and is vitiated.

¶17

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

¶18

Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu Suryaprakash, S/o.Vedi, made in D.O.No.77/2013-C2 dated 25.08.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Vellore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶19

However, this order shall not preclude authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
Dated: 10.07.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ar
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Govt.,
Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Thiruvannamalai District.
Thiruvannamalai.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Vellore.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law & Order)
Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
Habeas Corpus Petition No.2248 of 2013
AK (CO)
PSI (10.07.2014)

¶21

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

Manavaruthal v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manavaruthal v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Uthiravel @ Ukkiravel Vs the Inspector of Police

Vs

Dhanam Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P.Rani Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Mumtaj Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Suganthi Vs the Secretary to Government