Pothum Ponnu vs The District Collector/District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram and The State of Tamil Nadu

M. Jaichandren, J

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the Detention Order passed

by the first respondent,in Cr.M.P.No.8/ Goonda / 2011,dated 19.5.2011, and quash the same, and to direct the respondents to produce the

detenu, namely, Kannayeramoorthy, S/o.Mari, aged about 24 years, who has been detained in the Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court, and

to set him at liberty.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

Even though various grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the present Habeas Corpus Petition, the main contention of the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner is in respect of the delay in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner, dated 13.6.2011.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that there has been a delay of seven days between the date on which the

remarks had been called for, on the representation of the petitioner, dated 13.6.2011, and the date on which the remarks had been received. The

remarks had been called for, on 16.6.2011 and the remarks had been received, on 24.6.2011. Further, there has been a delay of 9 days between

the date when the matter had been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary concerned and the date on which it had been dealt with by the Minister for

Electricity and Prohibition and Excise. It is stated that the Deputy Secretary had dealt with the matter, on 24.6.2011, whereas, the Minister

concerned had dealt with it, only on 3.7.2011. As such, there is a delay of 9 days, during which 4 days had been government holidays. As such, it

is clear that there has been a delay of 5 days in dealing with the matter by the Minister concerned. At the same time, there is no explanation,

whatsoever, for the delay caused by the authorities concerned. Therefore, the impugned detention order is vitiated and the same is liable to be set

aside and the detenu is to be set at liberty, forthwith. In support of his contentions, relating to the delay in the disposal of the representation of the

petitioner, dated 13.6.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in Sumaiya v. The

Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai 9 and another 2007 (2) MWN

(Cr.) 145 (DB), wherein, the detention order had been quashed on the ground of three days delay in considering the representation of the detenu.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the

Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is clear that there has been a delay of 5 days, between 24.6.2011 and

3.7.2011, in considering the representation of the detenu, dated 13.6.2011, as stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,

and there is no proper explanation for such delay. In such circumstances, in view of the decision of this Court, in Sumaiya v. The Secretary to

Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 and another [2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145

(DB), this Court is of the considered view that the impugned Detention Order of the first respondent, dated 19.5.2011, is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the Detention Order, in Cr.M.P.No.8/Goonda/2011, dated 19.5.2011, passed by the first respondent, is set aside and the

Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any

other case.