IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 26.07.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN H.C.P.No.699 of 2017 M.Parvathy .. Petitioner Vs
1. The Principal Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Vepery Chennai – 600 007 .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 15.04.2017 in Memo No.186/BCDFGISSSV/2017 against the petitioner's son Mohan, Son of Mani, aged about 30 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Paarthiban For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran 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 the records relating to the detention order passed in Memo No.186/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 15.04.2017, against the detenu by name, Mohan, aged 30 years, S/o.Mani, No.13, Sidhi Vinayakar Koil Street, Srilakshmi Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600 095 and quash the same.
2. The Inspector of Police, T-4, Maduravoyal Police Station, as Sponsoring Authority, has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case:
i) T4 Maduravoyal Police Station, Crime No.898 of 2016, registered under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code, altered to Sections 120(b), 201, 302 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. Further it is averred that in the affidavit that on 08.03.2017, one Adhikesavan, S/o.Subramanian, residing at No.18, Om Sakthi Nagar, Vanagaram, Chennai-95, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint in T4 Maduravoyal Police Station wherein it is stated to the effect that in the place of occurrence the detenu has forcibly taken a sum of Rs.1700/- from the cash box of the defacto complainant by showing a deadly weapon and under such circumstances, a case has been registered in Crime No.459 of 2017 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
4. The Detaining Authority, after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately 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 mother of the detenu, as petitioner.
5. On the side of the respondents, a counter has been filed, wherein, it is contended to the effect that most of the averments made in the petition are false and the Sponsoring Authority has submitted all the relevant materials to the Detaining Authority and the Detaining Authority, after considering all the relevant materials supplied to him and other connected papers, has derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned detention order and the same does not call for any interference and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that on the side of the detenu, a representation has been given, but the same has not been disposed of without delay and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.
7. 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.
8. 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, 4 clear working days are available and in between column Nos.12 and 13, 20 clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such huge delay and that 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.
9. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order dated 15.04.2017 passed in Memo No.186/BCDFGISSSV/2017 by the second respondent against the detenu by name, Mohan, aged 30 years, S/o.Mani, No.13, Sidhi Vinayakar Koil Street, Srilakshmi Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600 095 is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
gpa To
1. The Principal Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Vepery Chennai – 600 007 [A.S., J.] [P.K., J.] 26.07.2017
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
A.SELVAM, J.
and P.KALAIYARASAN, J.
gpa H.C.P.No.699 of 2017 26.07.2017