AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Dhanapalan, J.—The father of the detenu is before this Court challenging the proceedings in BDFGISSV No. 130/2013, dated 14.09.2013 on the file of the 2nd respondent, seeking to quash the same and for a direction to the respondents to set him at liberty from detention.
The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases:
S. No.
Police Station and Crime No.
Sections of Law
1
Manimangalam Police Station
Crime No. 52/2013
120(b), 147, 148, 341, 307, 302 IPC r/w 109, 120(b), 149, 212 IPC and 3 & 5 Indian Explosive Substance Act 1908 r/w 109, 120(b) IPC
2
Manimangalam Police Station
Crime No. 257/2013
341, 294(b), 384, 506(ii) IPC
The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 15.08.2013 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Manimangalam Police Station in Crime No. 260/2013 for offences u/s 294(b), 386, 307, 506(ii) IPC r/w 3 of TNPPDL Act.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments on the question of delay in consideration of the petitioner''s representation, which has not been properly explained by the respondents. Therefore, it would vitiate the rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
We have heard Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records.
On a perusal of the list informing the course of consideration of the petitioner''s representation, it is seen that the Detention Order was passed on 14.09.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 23.09.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 26.09.2013; remarks were called on 28.09.2013 and only on 07.10.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 08.10.2013; the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 09.10.2013; on 12.10.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 18.10.2013 and it was served to the detenu on 23.10.2013.
Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of 4 days between 28.09.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 07.10.2013, the date on which remarks were received, excluding holidays, i.e. on 29.09.2013, 02.10.2013, 05.10.2013 and 06.10.2013. The said delay is not explained by the competent authority. Therefore, it is apparent that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in consideration of the petitioner''s representation and the same contradicts the requirement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the consequence thereof is in infringement of the right of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in BDFGISSSV No. 130/2013 dated 14.09.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Sivaraman in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.