Allowed

Murugan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC19 Jun 2014HCP/3143/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner detained under the Tamil Nadu Pre-Discharge Detention of Habitual Offenders Act challenged an order of detention due to a delay in his representation. The Court held that a delay exceeding five days between review and decision violated Article 22(5), setting aside the detention order and directing the petitioner's release.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.06.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.3143 of 2013

¶6

Murugan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by
its Secretary to Government,
Department of Prohibition
and Excise (Home),
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City Police,
Commissioner Office,
Egmore, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in No.1003/2013, dated 14.09.2013 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Murugan son of Murugesan aged about 29 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ilayaraja For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindaraj, Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN, J.)

¶9

The detenu himself is the petitioner. 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 the order of the second respondent passed in No.1003 of 2013, dated 14.09.2013.

¶10

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

¶11

As per the grounds of detention dated 14.09.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :-

¶12

Sl. No.	Police Station & No.	Crime	Section of Law
1	G-5 Secretariat	Colony	294(b), 392, 397, 506
	Police Station No.1160/2011	Cr.	(ii) IPC r/w 34 I.P.C.
2	G-5 Secretariat Police Station No.44/2012	Colony Cr.	457, 380 I.P.C.
3	G-5 Secretariat Police Station No.781/2012	Colony Cr.	379 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C
4	G-5 Secretariat Police Station No.1064/2012	Colony Cr.	457 and 380 I.P.C.
5	C-1 Flower Police Cr.No.97/2013	Bazaar Station	457 and 380 I.P.C.

¶13

In para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 01.09.2013 at 20.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, T-7 Tank Factory Police Station, in Crime No.574 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427 and 506(ii) r/w 397 I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai on the same day and remanded to judicial custody.

¶14

The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition.

¶15

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation dated 30.10.2013, 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 of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

¶17

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

¶18

On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 14.09.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, a representation dated 30.10.2013 was made to the authorities concerned, which was received on 31.10.2013, for which the remarks called on 04.11.2013 were received on 11.11.2013. On submission of the file on 13.11.2013, 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 16.11.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 16.11.2013.

¶19

In this whole process, there occurred a delay of more than 5 days, namely, between 04.11.2013 and 11.11.2013, excluding the holidays, 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

In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in No.1003/2013, dated 14.09.2013 is set aside. The detenu – Murugan son of Murugesan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar Dated: 30.07.2014

¶22

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶23

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶24

State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶25

2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, Commissioner Office, Egmore, Chennai.

¶26

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.

¶27

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

¶28

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶29

5.The Joint Secretary to Govt., Public (Law & Order), Secretariat, Chennai.

¶30

rsk (co) krd 31.7.14

¶31

HCP No.3143 of 2013

¶32

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

Murugan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan 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

Tmt.M.Sangeetha Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sapthar Hussain Vs the Secretary to Government

Thiru.Gopal Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

K.Lakshmi Vs Secretary

Thiru.Senthil@ Senthil Kumar Vs the Commissioner of Police

Kalpana Vs State of Tamil Nadu