IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 28.07.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN H.C.P.No.754 of 2017 M.Arumugam .. Petitioner Vs
1. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.
2. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, to call for the records relating to the detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in connection with the order of detention passed by the respondent dated 26.03.2017 in D.O.No.14/2017- C2 against the petitioner's son Saravanan @ Saravana Kumar, aged 26 years, S/o.M.Arumugam who is now confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekananthan For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in D.O.No.14/2017-C2 dated 26.03.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Saravanan @ Saravana Kumar, aged 26 years, S/o.M.Arumugam and quash the same.
2. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is stated that on 12.02.2017 at about 8.30 hrs, one Saminathan, S/o.Vedi Gounder, as de facto complainant has given a complaint, wherein, it is stated to the effect that on the same day at about 7.00 hrs, the detenu has attacked the brother of the de facto complainant by name Kanagaraj and due to his overt act, he passed away. Further, it is stated in the complaint that in the place of occurrence, the detenu has also attempted to murder the de facto complainant and consequently, a case has been registered in Crime No.64/2017 under Sections 341, 302 and 307 of IPC and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
3. The Detaining Authority after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents and also considering the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the detenu, has branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the father of the detenu as petitioner.
4. In the counter filed on the side of the respondents, it is averred to the effect that most of the averments made in the petition are false. The Sponsoring Authority has supplied all the materials to the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority after considering the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the detenu, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction and rightly branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and the same does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that on the side of the detenu, a representation has been submitted. But, the concerned authorities have not disposed of the same without delay and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representation submitted on the side of the detenu has been duly disposed of without delay and therefore, the contention urged on the side of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
7. On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted, wherein, it has been clearly stated that in between column Nos.7 and 9, 11 clear working days are available. Likewise, in between column Nos.12 and 13, 29 clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such a huge delay and the same would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.
8. In fine, this petition is allowed. The Detention Order dated 26.03.2017 passed in D.O.No.14/2017-C2 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Saravanan @ Saravana Kumar, aged 26 years, S/o.M.Arumugam, is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
gya To
1. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.
2. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
[A.S., J.] [P.K., J.] 28.07.2017 A.SELVAM, J.
and P.KALAIYARASAN, J.
gya H.C.P.No.754 of 2017 28.07.2017