High CourtsDivision Bench(2006) 02 MAD CK 0081

Baskar vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court · Decided on 24 February 2006

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Sathasivam, J · J.A.K. Sampathkumar, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1215 of 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 288 words

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Baskar, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 23.09.2005, detaining him as

Goonda"" u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral

Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short ""Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"").

2.

Heard both sides.

3.

Even at the foremost the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the

detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the said claim the learned Government Advocate has placed details, which

show that the representation of the detenue dated 28.10.2005 was received by the Government on 07.11.2005 and remarks were called on

08.11.2005, remarks were received on 11.11.2005. After receipt of the remarks, the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy

Secretary on 14.11.2005; order was passed by the Minister for Prohibition and Excise on 15.11.2005, rejection letter was prepared on

29.11.2005; the same was sent to the detenu on 29.11.2005 and the rejection letter was served on the detenu only on 30.11.2005. As rightly

pointed out though the concerned Minister has passed an order on 15.11.2005, there is no explanation or reason for not forwarding the same to

the detenu till 30.11.2005. In the absence of any explanation, we hold that the delay between 15.11.2005 and 30.11.2005 is enormous. On this

ground, the impugned detention order is vitiated and the same is quashed; accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order of detention impugned in

the petition is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other

case.