Aruldoss, 50 Yrs, v. Secretary Of Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 07.08.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN H.C.P.No.885 of 2017 Aruldoss .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Secretary to Government, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Chennai - 600 007 3.The Inspector of Police T-3, Korattur Police Station Chennai - 600 050 .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, to call for the entire records connected with the order of the 2nd respondent herein Memo No.203/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 20.04.2017 against the detenu, A.Arokiyasubash S/o.Aruldoss, aged about 24 years , who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Logeswaren For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] 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 Memo No.203/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 20.04.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Arockiyasubash, aged 24 years, S/o.Aruldoss, Neivayal Village, Neivayal Post, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and quash the same.
2. The Inspector of Police, T-3 Korattur Police Station, as Sponsoring Authority, has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that on 10.03.2017, one Nagarajan, aged 70 years, S/o.Krishnan, residing at No.33/37, Yadhavaal Street, Padi, Chennai -50, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint wherein it is averred to the effect that the present detenu and one Boopathy has resided in first floor of the house of the defacto complainant on monthly rental basis. Due to theft of gold chain of Babu, a tussle has arisen between the present detenu and the said Babu.
On the date of occurrence, the detenu himself has told the defacto complainant that he stabbed the said Babu by using a knife and scooted from the place of occurrence and thereafter, the defacto complainant checked the room in which both the present detenu and the said Babu has resided and ultimately found the dead body of the said Babu and due to that, a case has been registered in Crime No.616 of 2017 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
3. The Detaining Authority, after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu has committed a grave offence and ultimately branded him as "Goonda" by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, as petitioner.
4. On the side of the respondents, a counter has been filed, wherein, it is averred to the effect that most of the averments made in the affidavit are false and the Sponsoring Authority has submitted all the particulars to the Detaining Authority and the Detaining Authority after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has rightly derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu has committed a grave offence and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned detention order and the same does
not call for any interference and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that on the side of the detenu, a representation has been submitted, but, the same has not been disposed of without delay and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representation given on the side of the detenu has been disposed of without delay. Under the said circumstances, the contention put forth on the side of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
7. On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted, wherein it is clearly stated that in between column Nos.7 and 9, five clear working days are available and in between column Nos.12 and 13, nine clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such 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.
8. In fine, this petition is allowed. The Detention Order dated 20.04.2017 passed in Memo No.203/BCDFGISSSV/2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Arockiyasubash, aged 24 years, S/o.Aruldoss, Neivayal Village, Neivayal Post, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gpa To 1.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public [Law and Order] Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu [Home], Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
3. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Chennai - 600 007 4.The Inspector of Police T-3, Korattur Police Station Chennai - 600 050 5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai [in duplicate for communication to the detenu] 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.V.Loganathan Advocate sr 56499 H.C.P.No.885 of 2017 arviii aa07/08/2017