Balaraman vs State of Tamil Nadu

Ratnavel Pandian, J.—The above writ petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by one Balaraman, the father of the detenu

Eranniammal, seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention and setting the detenu at liberty.

The impugned order of detention dated 17th February, 1986 was passed by the second respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him

by sub-S. (1) of S. 3 of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, on drawing the subjective satisfaction on the materials placed before him, with a view to

preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and the detenu was directed to be detained and

kept in custody in the Central Prison, Madras.

Mr. Venkatasubramaniam, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, challenges the validity of the order of detention on the

ground that the representation made by the detenu on 18th March, 1986 has not been given a continued attention and the same was dismissed on

15th April, 1986 after a delay of 25 days, and as such the impugned order of detention has to be set aside.

No doubt, the delay has to be examined with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. But, now coming to the present case, it is

the admitted case of the second respondent that the representation of the detenu dated 18th March, 1986 was received by him on 25th March,

1986 for parawar remarks. In paragraph 5(V) of the counter, the second respondent has stated as follows:

The representation was processed, 28th March, 1986 was Good Friday and a Government Holiday. 29th March, 1986 was Saturday and 30th

March, 1986 was Sunday and both days were Government holidays. Parawar remarks from the concerned Inspector of Police were called for

and received. 5th April, 1986 was a Saturday and 6th April, 1986 was Sunday and both were Government holidays. Parawar remarks were

prepared on 6th April, 1986 arid sent to the first respondent on 7th April, 1986. Between 25th March, 1986 and 6th April, 1986 the

representation received the continued attention of this respondent. There was no avoidable delay on the part of this respondent in sending the

parawar remarks to the first respondent.

A careful examination of the above averments would show that though the representation was received by the second respondent on 25th

March, 1986 itself, the said representation was not attended to either on 25th March, 1986 or on 26th March, 1986 or on 27th March, 1986.

Now, the second respondent takes advantage of the three intervening holidays between 28th March, 1986 and 30th March, 1986 and states that

these three days were holidays. It is not mentioned on which date the para war remarks were called for from the concerned Inspector. But, what

they would state is that the parawar remarks were prepared on 6th April, 1986 and sent to the first respondent on 7th April, 1986. It is not clear

as to what happened from 25th March, 1986 to 6th April, 1986. The only inference would be that the representation has not been given proper

attention. Hence, we conclude that the delay in the consideration of the representation had occasioned in this case from 26th March, 1986 to 7th

April, 1986, during which period it was with the second respondent. This delay, in our view, which has not been properly explained, would vitiate

the validity of the impugned order of detention.

Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.