Allowed

Mrs. Basira, v. Secretary to Govt

Madras HC1 Sept 2017HCP/579/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226 for habeas corpus. The court quashed a detention order passed against Mohammed Yasin due to unexplained delays in disposing of his representations, which violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution. He was directed to be set at liberty immediately.

What did the court decide?

The Detention Order dated 28.03.2017 was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Mrs. Basira, Vs Secretary to Govt — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 01.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.579 of 2017

¶6

Basira .. Petitioner Vs

¶7

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶8

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, O/o.The Commissioner of Police, [Goonda Section] Vepery, Chennai-7. .. Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, to call for the records relating to the petitioner's detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, vide BCDFGISSSV No.80/2017 dated 28.03.2017 on the file of the 2^nd respondent to produce the body of detenu Mohammed Yasin, aged 40 years, S/o.Kadhar Moideen, who was confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.M.Samsuhihar

¶11

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in BCDFGISSSV No.80/2017 dated 28.03.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Mohammed Yasin, aged 40 years, S/o.Kadhar Moideen, No.13, A-Block, Classic Apartment, Cemetry Road, Old

¶12

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

¶13

Washermenpet, Chennai-21 and quash the same.

¶14

The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team X, Video Piracy Cell, Greater Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai-8, as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that on 10.03.2017, the Sub-Inspector of Police by name, G.Agoram and others have made conducted video piracy check up and between the course of their check up, they found the detenu in possession of DVDs/CDs without copyright and consequently, a case has been registered in Crime No.68/2017 under Sections 52[A], 68[A], 51 r/w. 63[a] and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and 292[2][a] of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.

¶15

The Detaining Authority, after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected papers, has derived at a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu has committed the offence mentioned in the affidavit and ultimately, branded him as "Video Pirate" by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, as petitioner.

¶16

On the side of the respondents, counter has not been filed. Under such circumstances, the present petition is disposed of on merits on the basis of the available materials on record.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that on the side of the detenu, two representations are submitted, but, the same are not been disposed of without delay and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.

¶18

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representations submitted on the side of the detenu are duly disposed of without delay and therefore, the contention put forth on the side of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

¶19

On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted, wherein, it is clearly stated that in respect of first representation, in between column Nos.11 and 12, 20 clear working days are available. Likewise, in respect of second representation, in between column Nos.11 and 12, 23 clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such huge delay and the same would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.

¶20

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

¶21

In fine, this petition is allowed. The Detention Order dated 28.03.2017 passed in BCDFGISSSV No.80/2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Mohammed Yasin, aged 40 years, S/o.Kadhar Moideen is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public [Law and Order] Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
O/o.The Commissioner of Police,
[Goonda Section]
Vepery, Chennai-7.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
[in duplicate for communication to the detenu]
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.A.K.H.Samsunihar, Advocate, S.R.No.63155
H.C.P.No.579 of 2017
CP(CO)
GN(01/09/2017 )

¶26

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

Mrs. Basira, v. Secretary to Govt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Basira, v. Secretary to Govt

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

Nagamani, Aged 40 Years, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Shekar, Aged 35 Years, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M.Thulasidevi, Aged 49 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mr.Mario Ronold, Aged 29 Yrs Vs State Represented by

Sathyavani, F/47 Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Jayanthi, Female, Aged Vs the Secretary to the