Allowed

Jaya v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC18 Jun 2014HCP/2690/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Habeas Corpus petition, the mother of a detainee challenged an order of detention under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, alleging an inordinate delay of 36 days in processing a representation. The Court found the delay violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution, quashed the detention order, and directed the release of the detainee.

What did the court decide?

The detention order was quashed, and the detenu was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless custody was required in another case.

Jaya Vs the Secretary to Government — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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.2690 of 2013

¶6

Jaya ... Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

The Secretary to the Govt., Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai. ... Respondents 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.1105/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 24.09.2013, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the detenu Dinesh, S/o.Bhadrinarayanan, male, aged 28 years, now confined at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶9

For petitioner : Mr.Durai Kannan For respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.,)

¶10

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 Memo No.1105/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 24.09.2013.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

Sr.No.	Police Station and Crime No.	Sections of Law
1.	G-2, Periyamedu Police Station, Crime No.561 of 2012	Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC
2.	G-2, Periyamedu Police Station, Crime No.428 of 2013	Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 394 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 4 of TN Women Harassment Act
3.	F-2, Egmore Police Station, Crime No.604 of 2013	Sections 341, 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC
4.	G-1, Vepery Police Station, Crime No.662 of 2013	Sections 341, 448, 294 (b), 384, 427 and 506(ii) IPC
5.	G-2, Periyamedu Police Station, Crime No.784 of 2013	Section 392 IPC

¶14

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 18.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, G-2, Periyamedu Police Station in Crime No.786 of 2013 for offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.

¶15

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 18.10.2013, 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.

¶16

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

¶17

On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 24.09.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, the detenu made a representation dated 18.10.2013 to the authorities concerned, which was received on 25.10.2013, for which the remarks called on the same day were received on 16.12.2013. On submission of the file on 19.12.2013, 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 20.12.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected.

¶18

In this whole process, there occurred an inordinate delay of 36 days, namely, between 25.10.2013 and 16.12.2013 (excluding

¶19

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

¶20

holidays of 16 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.

¶21

Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu Dinesh, S/o.Bhadrinarayanan, made in Memo No.1105/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 24.09.2013 is quashed and 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.

¶22

However, it is made clear that 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 or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.

¶23

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ar
To
1. The Secretary to the Govt.,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order)
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
Habeas Corpus Petition No.2690 of 2013
jp(co)pmk.2.7.2014

¶24

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

Jaya v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaya 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

Sapthar Hussain Vs the Secretary to Government

Thiru.Gopal Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by