CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2006) 03 MAD CK 0222

M. Chinnaponnu vs The Commissioner of Police, The Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Dept. and The Superintendent, Central Prison

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 March 2006

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Sathasivam, J · J.A.K. Sampathkumar, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1274 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

6 paragraphs · 318 words

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 25.09.2005, detaining her son by name Chinnathambi @ Udhayakumar 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).

2.

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

3.

At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu.

The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 07.11.2005. Subsequently, remarks were called for and the same were received on 15.11.2005 and the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary on 16-11-2005. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the File on 17.11.2005 and the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 18-11-2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 29 .11.2005. The said letter was sent to the Central Prison for service on 30.11.2005 and served to the detenu on 02.12.2005.

4.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the competent authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and Excise, passed orders on 18.11.2005, there is no reason for taking time till 29.11.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper explanation, even if we exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to the detenu in considering his representation effectively. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is quashed.

5.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.