AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. A. Selvam, J.—This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to detention order, dated 18.12.2015, passed in No.1266/BCDFGISSSV/2015, by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as the second respondent herein, against the detenu, by name Ganesan @ Burma Ganesh, Son of Duraisamy and quash the same.
The Inspector of Police, M5 Ennore Police Station, as sponsoring authority, has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is averred that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case:
M5 Ennore Police Station, Cr.No.1432 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 307 r/w.109 of the Indian Penal Code.
Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 26.09.2015, one Saravanan, son of Kasi, has lodged a complaint against the detenu and others in M5, Ennore Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.1436 of 2015, under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, read with Section 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
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 a ''Goonda'' by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the detenu himself, as petitioner.
On the side of the respondents, a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended interalia to the effect that all the averments made in the affidavit are false and the detaining authority, after considering the materials placed before him, has rightly branded the detenu as "Goonda" and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the detenu, two representations have been given and the same have not been disposed of without delay and therefore, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents has contended that the representations submitted by the detenu are duly disposed of without delay and therefore, the detention order in question need not be quashed.
On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted, wherein it has been clearly stated that with regard to first representation the remarks have been called for on 29.01.2016. But the remarks have been received on 09-02-2016. Likewise with regard to Column Nos.12 and 13, the concerned file has reached the Deputy Secretary on 09.02.2016 and the concerned Minister has disposed of the same on 27.2.2016. Therefore, it is quite clear that with regard to first representation, a vast delay has occurred and the same has not been explained on the side of the respondents. Likewise with regard to second representation, remarks have been called for on 24.2.2016 and remarked have been received on 16.3.2016. Further, in between column Nos.12 and 13, the concerned file has reached the Deputy Secretary on 17.3.2016 and the concerned Minister has disposed of the same on 26.3.2016. Even in respect of second representation, there is a vast delay in disposing of the same and the said delay has not been explained on the side of the respondents. Since there is a huge delay in disposing of the representations given by the petitioner, the same would affect the rights of the petitioner/detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
In fine this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order dated 18.12.2015, passed in No.1266/BCDFGISSSV/2015, by the detaining authority against the detenu, by name Ganesan @ Burma Ganesh, son of Duraisamy, is quashed and the respondents are directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with some other case.