Allowed

Padma v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC11 Jun 2014HCP/2470/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an impugned detention order passed under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 due to an unexplained delay of five days in considering the detenu's representation. The delay violated Article 22(5) and consequently Article 21. The petitioner was granted habeas corpus and the detenu was set at liberty.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Detention Order is quashed. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is set at liberty forthwith unless custody is required for another case.

Padma Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.06.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶5

H.C.P.No.2470 of 2013

¶6

Padma ... Petitioner vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, The Commissioner Office, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ...Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.1191/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 01.10.2013 passed by the 2^nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's husband Vinoth Kumar, S/o.Murthy, aged about 28 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner's husband Vinoth Kumar, S/o.Murthy, aged about 28 years, the detenue herein at liberty.

¶7

(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 2^nd respondent passed in Memo No.1191/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 01.10.2013.

¶8

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

¶9

The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

¶10

S.No.	Police Station and Crime No.	Sections of Law
1	D-3 Guduvanchery Police Station Crime No.624/2011	341, 363, 392 IPC
2	S-15, Selaiyur Police Station Crime No.799/2013	Man Missing @ 365 @ 147, 120(b), 365, 302, 379, 201 IPC
3	S-13 Chromepet Police Station Crime No.982/2013	294(b), 384, 392, 506(ii) IPC

¶11

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 23.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-13, Chromepet Police Station in Crime No.1005/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.

¶12

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.

¶13

We have heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records.

¶14

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 01.10.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 12.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 18.11.2013; remarks were called on 19.11.2013 and only on 27.11.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 28.11.2013; the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 28.11.2013; on 03.12.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejection letter was prepared on 03.12.2013 and sent to the detenu on 05.12.2013.

¶15

Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of five (5) days between 19.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 27.11.2013, the date on which remarks were received, excluding two holidays, i.e. on 23^rd and 24^th of November 2013. 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.

¶16

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

¶17

Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in BDFGISSSV No.1191/2013 dated 01.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Vinoth Kumar, aged 28 years in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶18

However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the 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 or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II) Dated: 09.07.2014

¶20

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

To 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶22

1. The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner Office, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶23

1. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶24

1. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Dept., Fort St George, Chennai - 9.

¶25

1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

¶26

BVR(CO) JJM (10.07.2014)

¶27

H.C.P.No.2470 of 2013

¶28

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

Padma v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padma v. 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

S.Kothai, W/O.Sundhakar, Vs State by Inspector of Police

Mrs.J.Hadhiya Fathima Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Dayalan Vs the Secretary to Government

Devi Vs the Governemtn of Tamil Nadu

Maga Vs the Secretary to Government

Devaki Vs the Secretary to Government