Allowed

M.Mano Ranjitham v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC16 Apr 2019HCP/2904/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking release of her son detained under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Premises used as Gaming Houses Act, 1982. The court set aside the detention order solely because the detention authority failed to deal with the post-detention representation within seven days without a plausible explanation, violating Article 22.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 12.11.2018 is set aside and the detenu is set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

M.Mano Ranjitham Vs the Secretary to the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 16.04.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
HCP.No.2904 of 2018
M.Mano Ranjitham .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Secretary to the Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
(Home) Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records connected with the order of the 2^nd respondent herein in Memo No.1030/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 12.11.2018 against the petitioner's son detenue namely Rajeswaran @ Raja son of Mariyappan, aged about 34 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66 and set aside the same, consequently, directing the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.]

¶13

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who, vide impugned Order of Detention dated 12.11.2018 passed by the 2^nd respondent by invoking Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in branding the detenu as ' 'Goonda'' , came forward to file this Habeas Corpus petition.

¶14

A perusal of the grounds of detention would disclose among
other things that the detenu came to adverse notice in the following
cases:
Sl.No. Crime No. Section of law Date of
occurrence
1. Thirunelveli 341, 294(b), 506(ii), IPC 25.11.2014
District
Thevarkulam
Police Station
Cr.No.228/2014
2. Thirunelveli 294(b), 307, 506(ii) IPC 26.11.2014
District Maanur
Police Station
Cr.No.406/2014
3. Thirunelveli 147, 148, 302, 120(B), 17.10.2016
District 149, 307, 212 IPC
Sankarankoil
Taluk Police
Station
Cr.No.76/2016

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

¶17

*Sl.No.*	*Crime No.*	*Section of law*	*Date of* *occurrence*
4.	Thirunelveli City	147, 148, 294(b), 364(A),	14.07.2017
	Melapalayam P.S	307 IPC r/w Sec.4 of
	Cr.No.420/2017	TNPHW Act, 2002

¶18

It is further averred in the ground of detention that one Thiru.Sendoorpandiyan, resident of Thirusulam, Chennai is employed at Tambaram. His wife was working in a water can company and developed illicit intimacy with the detenu and defacto complainant having aware of the same also advised her and on account of the fact that the wife of the defacto complainant developed a quarrel with him and left the matrimonial home at about 11.10.2018, the defacto complainant was waylaid by the detenu and he was abused by using filthy words and also took out a knife and tried to assault him. When the defacto complainant raised an alarm, the public gathered and they were also threatened with dire consequences and taking advantage of the situation, fled away from

¶19

the scene of occurrence. The Sub Inspector of Police, S-5 Pallavaram Police Station has registered a case in Cr.No.758/2018 under Sections 341, 294(b), 307, 336 and 506(ii) IPC. The detenu was arrested at about 11.10 hours on 12.10.2018 and upon interrogation, he voluntarily came forward to give a confession statement and based on the admissible

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

¶22

portion of the confession statement, some incriminating articles were seized. The detenu was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Chennai on 12.10.2018 and was ordered to be remanded to judicial custody till 14.11.2018.

¶23

The Detaining Authority namely, the 2^nd respondent, on the

¶24

basis of materials, formed a subjective satisfaction that the detenu, who

¶25

has committed the crime, have already came to adverse notice in four

¶26

cases and his acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and accordingly, clamped the impugned orders of detention and challenging

¶27

the legality of the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would

¶29

submit that for revoking the order of detention, passed against the detenu, the post detention representation dated 12.12.2018 was submitted

¶30

and the Deputy Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise (X) Department had dealt with the same on 21.12.2018 and the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise had dealt with the same on 04.01.2019 and there was a delay of 13 days and even excluding 6 days holidays, still there was a delay of 7 days in dealing with the said representation

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶32

¶33

and in the absence of proper explanation, the said delay is fatal to the

¶34

impugned order of detention and therefore, prays for appropriate orders.

¶35

Per contra , Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public

¶36

Prosecutor appearing for the State by drawing attention of this Court to

¶37

the worksheet and would submit that the delay cannot be construed as fatal and the 2^nd respondent / Detaining Authority, after due and proper application of mind, has rightly clamped the order of detention and hence prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶38

This Court has considered the rival submissions and also

¶39

perused the entire materials placed before it.

¶40

A perusal of the worksheet as to the disposal of the

¶41

representation would clearly reveal that the Deputy Secretary, Home,

¶42

Prohibition and Excise (X) Department had dealt with the same on 21.12.2018 and the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise had dealt with the same on 04.01.2019 and there was a delay of 13 days and even excluding 6 days holidays, still there was a delay of 7 days in dealing with the said representation and no plausible or tenable

¶43

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶44

¶45

explanation has been offered on behalf of the respondents as to the said delay. In the considered opinion of this Court, the delay in dealing with the representation violates the valuable right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and hence on the sole

¶46

ground, the impugned order warrants interference.

¶47

8. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed and the

¶48

Detention Order passed by the second respondent in No.1030/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 12.11.2018 is set aside and the detenu namely Rajeswaran @ Raja son of Mariyappan, aged about 34 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66 is set at liberty forthwith unless his detention / custody is required in connection with any other case / proceedings.

¶49

[M.S.N., J] [M.N.K., J] 16.04.2019 Internet : Yes/No Index :Yes/No

¶50

¶51

¶52

1.The Secretary to the Government Government of Tamil Nadu (Home) Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George,Chennai-600 009.

¶53

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶54

¶55

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.

¶56

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶57

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶58

¶59

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., sk

¶60

HCP.No.2904 of 2018

¶61

16.04.2019

¶62

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.Mano Ranjitham v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Mano Ranjitham v. the Secretary to the 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

Lathasree Vs Government of Tamilnadu

Geetha Vs the Additional Secretary to

S.Sumathi Vs the State Rep. by

V.Gopi Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

E.Gothawari Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Rabiya Vs the Secretary to Government