AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Palanivelu, J.—The wives of the detenus are the petitioners. Both detenus were involved in the adverse cases as well as in the ground
case. The Detaining Authority namely, the second respondent clamped detention order on the detenus on 02.07.2007 by means of separate
proceedings against each of them branding them as Goondas.
In the adverse cases vested against them, one in Crime No. 492 of 2006 on the file of the Kanyakumari Police Station registered under Sections
147, 148, 341, 427, 435, 307 I.P.C. and 147, 148, 294(b), 307, 324, 341, 427, 435 r/w 149 I.P.C. and in the said case, it is stated that on
28.08.2006 at about 19.30 hrs in front of Godwin property in Kottaram to Vattakottai Road, the detenus along with their confederates came to
the scene of crime caused damages to the properties besides causing injuries to the complainant and others.
The second case was registered in Crime No. 89 of 2007 on the file of the South Thamaraikulam Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 341,
302 I.P.C. in which it is reported that both the detenus along with other co-accused committed murder of Kannan and Selvan @ Protta Selvan in
a tank near overflow shutter at Thalaikulam on 04.06.2007 at 9.00 hrs.
The ground case has been registered in Crime No. 245 of 2007 on the file of Kanyakumari Police Station under Sections 447, 387, 332, 307
I.P.C. in which it is stated that on 06.06.2007 at about 8.30 hrs at Kottaram Junction, when the complainant Rajalingam, Head Constable of
Kanniyakumari Police Station was on traffic regulation duty, both the detenus along with other co-accused picked up quarrel with him and
attempted to murder him by means of a knife.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that there was a delay in considering the representations of the detenus which would
prejudice the right to liberty of the detenus. He further pointed out that there was a delay between 16.08.2007 and 22.08.2007. While the
intervening period is taken up for consideration, it is learnt that 18th and 19th August 2007 were public holidays and there was hardly only one
working day intervening between 16.08.2007 and 20.08.2007 from the date of dealing of the file by the Minister for Law and the date of rejection
letter prepared by the ministerial staff. The rejection letter was sent to the detenus on 22.08.2007, which was served upon them on 24.08.2007.
The above said particulars would sufficiently show that there was no remarkable delay so as to prejudice the rights of the detenus.
In this context, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor draws the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by Honourable Supreme
Court in Senthamilselvi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 50 in which their Lordships have observed in paragraph No. 6 as
follows:
Coming to the plea that there was delay in disposal of the representation it is to be noted that the order of detention is dated 01.12.2005. The
representation was sent on 11.12.2005 which was received by the respondents on 15.12.2005. The details were called for on 16.12.2005 which
were received on 20.12.2005. The file was submitted on 21.12.2005 and dealt with by the Under-Secretary and Deputy Secretary on
22.12.2005. The Minister concerned passed an order on 22.12.2005 and other order of rejection which was passed on 27.12.2005 was issued
on 28.12.2005 which was sent to the Superintendent of the Jail where the detenu was incarcerated, which was communicated to the detenu. It
was received by the prison authorities and it was served on the detenu on the day it was received by the jail authority. The factual scenario
indicated above indicates that the representation was dealt with utmost expedition. There can be no hard-and-fast rule as to the measure of
reasonable time and each case has to be considered from the facts of the case and if there is no negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red
tapism on the facts of a case, the Court would not interfere. It needs no reiteration that it is the duty of the Court to see that the efficacy of the
limited, yet crucial, safeguards provided in the law of preventive detention is not lost in mechanical routine, dull casualness and chill indifference, on
the part of the authorities entrusted with their application. When there is remissness, indifference or avoidable delay on the part of the authority, the
detention becomes vulnerable. That is not the case at hand.
The Apex Court is of the view that the particulars submitted by the Public Prosecutor would show that the representation was consciously dealt
with by the authorities concerned with utmost expedition and even though there was a delay, that could not be stated that it is an unreasonable one
and hence the circumstances of delay would not extend any benefit to the detenus. Following the principles laid down in the said decision, while the
facts of the present case are considered, since there is no unreasonable delay on the part of the authorities concerned, we do not accept the
contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. No costs.