R. Subha v. The Secretary To Govt
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.03.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1275 of 2014 R.Subha .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.
.. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus praying to call for the entire records connected with the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.58/BDFGISSV/2014, dated 31.10.2014 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Ranjith Kumar, Son of Elavarasan, aged about 38 years, now detained in Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.A.Ramar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
(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 detention order passed in No.58/BDFGISSV/2014, dated 31.10.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Ranjith Kumar, Son of Elavarasan and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
2. The Inspector of Police, E1 K.Pudur Police Station as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:
(i) Crime No.578 of 2012 E1 K.Pudur Police Station registered under Sections 147, 120(b), 365, 323, 379 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Crime No.388 of 2013 C1 Thideer Nagar Police Station registered under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Further it is stated in the affidavit that one Thiagarajan as complainant has given a complaint in E1 K.Pudur Police Station against the detenu and the same has been registered in Crime No.827 of 2014 under Sections 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
4. The detaining authority, after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately branded him as 'Goonda' by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu as petitioner.
5. On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the detenu two representations have been submitted and the same have not been disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representations submitted on the side of the detenu are duly considered and disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question does not call for any interference.
8. On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that with regard to first representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, four clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, four clear working days are available and with regard to second representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, five clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, two clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to huge delay in disposing of the representations submitted on the side of the detenu and that itself 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.
9. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order dated 31.10.2014 passed in No.58/BDFGISSV/2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Ranjith Kumar, Son of
Elavarasan at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government Public(Law & Order) Secretariat Chennai-9 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1cc to MR.R.ALAGUMANI, ADVOCATE SR.NO.14421 ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.1275 of 2014 23.03.2015 ps NA/26/03/2015/P3/7C