High CourtsDivision Bench(2006) 02 MAD CK 0082

Raja @ Sesu Raja vs The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise Department and The Detaining Authority, District Collector, District Magistrate

Madras High Court · Decided on 24 February 2006

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Sathasivam, J · J.A.K. Sampathkumar, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1214 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

16 paragraphs · 333 words

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Raja @ Sesu Raja, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 30.04.2005, detaining him

as ""Goonda"" u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral

Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short ""Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"").

2.

Heard both sides.

3.

Even at the foremost the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the

detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the said claim the learned Government Advocate has placed details, which

show that the representation of the detenue dated Nil was received by the Government on 14.06.2005 and remarks were called on 15.06.2005,

reminders were sent on 21.06.2005 and 27.06.2005; remarks were received on 27.06.2005. After receipt of the remarks, the same was dealt

with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 28.06.2005; order was passed by the Minister for Prohibition and Excise on

29.06.2005, rejection letter was prepared on 06.07.2005; the same was sent to the detenu on 07.07.2005 and the rejection letter was served on

the detenu only on 09.07.2005. As rightly pointed out though remarks were called for on 15.06.2005, remarks were received only on 27.06.2005

and the concerned Minister has passed an order on 29.06.2005, there is no explanation or reason for receiving remarks after 13 days and after

getting orders from the concerned Minister on 29.06.2005 the same was not forwarded to the detenu till 09.07.2005. In the absence of any

explanation, we hold that the delay between 15.06.2005 and 27.06.2005 as well as 29.06.2005 to 09.07.2005 are enormous. On this ground, the

impugned detention order is vitiated and the same is quashed; accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order of detention impugned in the petition

is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.