Karuppayee vs The Commissioner of Police and The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Prohibition and Excise Department

P. Sathasivam, J.—Mother of the detenu challenges the detention order dated 05.07.2005, detaining her son by name Dhanasekaran as

''Goonda'' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,

Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the foremost, submitted

that even though the detenu was arrested in respect of two Crime Numbers, namely, 694/05 and 825/05 on the file of M-4 Redhills Police Station,

the detaining Authority has taken note of Crime No. 694 of 2005 alone and there is no reference to the other Crime Number, viz., 825/05, which,

according to the learned counsel, shows the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.

For this, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that Crime No. 694 of 2005 relates to a graver offence, viz., punishable

Section 302 IPC. In so far as Crime No. 825 of 2005 is concerned, it relates to an offence u/s 201 IPC. Inasmuch as the Detaining Authority was

aware of the fact that the detenu was in remand in respect of a graver offence and has passed the impugned detention order after satisfying himself

with the materials placed before him, we are of the view that there is no need to refer the other Crime Number. We have also verified the Arrest

Report and the details regarding the offence committed in both the cases. We accept the explanation offered by the learned Government Advocate

and inasmuch as the Detaining Authority was aware of the relevant fact that the detenu was in remand in respect of a major crime, we do not find

any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel.

It is contended that there is delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate

show that the representation was received by the Government on 16.08.2005, remarks were called for on 17.08.2005 and the same were

received on 24.08.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 25.08.2005. Finally, the Minster for

Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 29.08.2005. The Rejection Letter was prepared on 02.09.2005 and the same was sent for service on the

same date and served to the detenu on 03.09.2005.

It is argued that the authorities are not justified in taking time till 02.09.2005 for preparation of the Rejection Letter, when the Minister for

Prohibition and Excise passed orders even on 29.08.2005. Learned Government Advocate has placed the records before us. A perusal of the

same shows that the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 29.08.2005. However, the File was sent to the concerned Section only

on 02.09.2005 and on the same date, the Rejection letter was prepared and issued. On going through the materials, we are satisfied that there is

no undue delay as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same stands

dismissed.