Raja Priya v. The Principal Secretary To
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 27.04.2016 Coram :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.GOKULDAS H.C.P.(MD)No.76 of 2016 Raja Priya .. Petitioner Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
.. Respondents Prayer : Habeas Corpus 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 detention order passed in No.06/2016 dated 11.01.2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely Rajasekar S/o.Pitchaithevar aged about 30 years now detained at Central Prison, Madurai before this court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sudalayandi For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh Addl.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 the detention order passed in No.06/2016 dated 11.01.2016 by the detaining authority who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Rajasekar S/o.Pitchaithevar and quash the same.
2. The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town North 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.1363 of 2015, Dindigul Town North Police Station, registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code;
(ii)Crime No.492 of 2015, Thadicombu Police Station, registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii)Crime No.1090 of 2015, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, registered under Section 392 r/w 397 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 27.11.2015 one Anbarasan S/o.Ponnuthurai as defacto complainant has given a complaint against the detenu in Dindigul Town North Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.1371 of 2015 under Sections 392 r/w 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 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 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 inter alia 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 a representation has been submitted and the same has 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 representation submitted on the side of the detenu has been duly 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 in between column Nos.7 to 9, 9 clear working days are available and in
between column Nos.12 and 13, 13 clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay in disposing of the representation submitted on the side of the detenu and that itself would affect his rights 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 11.01.2016 passed in No.06/2016 by the detaining authority/second respondent herein is quashed and the detenu by name Rajasekar S/o.Pitchaithevar is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To
1. State of Tamil Nadu, The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009
4. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai.
5. The Director General of Police, Chennai - 4.
6. The Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul.
8. The Commissioner of Police, Dindigul.
9. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai. 10.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Mj JM/JGB-SS/09.05.2016/3P-11C H.C.P.(MD)No.76 of 2016 27.04.2016