AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who has been branded as a ""Goonda"" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in BDFGISSV No. 66 of 2013, dated 13.04.2013. The detenu came
to adverse notice in Crime No. 635 of 2012 on the file of Maraimalai Nagar Police Station for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302
IPC.
The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu on 09.03.2013, by the Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station in
Crime No. 143 of 2013 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 395, 307 and 506H IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the
present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments
on the ground that there is a delay in considering the petitioner''s representation dated 06.05.2013, which would vitiate the impugned detention
order.
We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.
On verification, it is seen that the petitioner has made a representation to the 1st respondent on 06.05.2013, whereas the details furnished by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor reveal that it is dated nil. However, the same was received by the respondents on 17.05.2013 and thereafter,
remarks were called for on 20.05.2013, but remarks were received only on 29.05.2013. Thereafter, the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary
to Government dealt with the file and ultimately, the representation was rejected on 06.06.2013. While examining the above position, it is evident
that there is a delay of 12 days, after giving concession for intermittent Saturdays and Sundays, in considering the representation of the petitioner,
which would vitiate the impugned detention order.
In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court, in the case of Rashid Kapadia Vs. Medha Gadgil and Others, , has held as follows:
It can be seen from the above extracted portion that the first respondent called for the parawise remarks of the sponsoring authority (Customs
Department) on 09.08.2011. However, the sponsoring authority responded to the inquiry of the first respondent on 26.08.2011 with a delay of
fifteen days. The reasons for such delay have not been explained by the sponsoring authority, represented by the third respondent herein. There is
nothing on the record placed before us, which explains the abovementioned delay on the part of the third respondent''s Department.
It is well settled that the right of a person, who is preventively detained, to make a representation and have it considered by the authority
concerned as expeditiously as possible, is a constitutional right under Article 22(5). Any unreasonable and un explainable delay in considering the
representation is held to be fatal to the continued detention of the detenu. The proposition is too well settled in a long line of decisions of this Court.
We do not think it necessary to examine the authorities on this aspect, except to take note of a couple of judgments where the principle is
discussed in detail....
Therefore, we have no option but to come to the conclusion that the detention order cannot be sustained on the above-mentioned ground
alone and it is required to be, accordingly, set aside.
Taking note of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment and considering the facts of the case, the impugned detention
order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Kathiravan S/o. Munirasu made in BDFGISSV No. 66 of 2013 dated
13.04.2013 is vitiated on the ground of delay and therefore it is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is
ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. However, we make it clear that it is for the
respondents to take note of the gravity of the offence and they shall prosecute the case before the trial Court without being influenced by this order.
Likewise, the detenu shall not take any advantage of this order in any of the regular proceedings.