Quashed

Sapthar Hussain v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC18 Jun 2014HCP/2649/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 due to an inordinate delay of 28 days in reviewing the detenu's representation, holding that it violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 02.10.2013 was quashed, and the detenu Jaheer Hussain was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless custody was required for another case.

Sapthar Hussain Vs the Secretary to Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 18.06.2014

¶3

Coram :-

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶5

Habeas Corpus Petition No.2649 of 2013

Sapthar Hussain

...Petitioner

-vs-

The Secretary to the Govt., Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

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 Memo No.1207/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 02.10.2013, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the detenu Jaheer Hussain, S/o.Sapthar Hussain, male, aged 30 years, now confined at the Central Prison, Puzhal I, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶11

The petitioner is the father 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 Memo No.1207/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 02.10.2013.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

Sr.No.	Police Stati	on and Crime No.	Sections of Law
1.	G-1, Vepery	Police Station,	Section 380 IPC
	Crime No.682	of 2012
2.	G-1, Vepery	Police Station,	Sections 457 and 380 IPC
	Crime No.982	of 2012

¶15

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 18.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, G-1, Vepery Police Station in Crime No.785 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.

¶16

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation dated 05.11.2013, 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.

¶17

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

¶18

On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 02.10.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, the detenu made a representation dated 05.11.2013 to the authorities concerned, which was received on 08.11.2013, for which the remarks called on 11.11.2013 were received on 27.11.2013. On submission of the file on 23.12.2013, it was dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 29.12.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 31.01.2014, which was sent to the detenu on 03.02.2014.

¶19

In this whole process, there occurred an inordinate delay of 28 days, namely, between 11.11.2013 and 27.11.2013 as also between 27.11.2013 and 23.12.2013 (excluding holidays of 14 days), 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.

¶20

Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu Jaheer Hussain, S/o.Sapthar Hussain, made in Memo No.1207/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 02.10.2013 is quashed and

¶21

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

¶22

the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶23

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
Dated: 10.07.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ar
To
1. The Secretary to the Govt.,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary,
Public (Law & Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai.
4. The Superintendent
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
Habeas Corpus Petition No.2649 of 2013
GGK (CO)
PSI (10.07.2014)

¶24

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

Sapthar Hussain v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sapthar Hussain v. the Secretary to Government

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.Josphin Mary Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mrs.Umarani Vs the Principal Secretary to

B.Vedhamani Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Tmt.M.Sangeetha Vs the Superintendent of Police

Thiru.Gopal Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Jaya Vs the Secretary to Government