(The order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU.,J ) The petitioner is the mother of one Mr.Karthikeyan @ Karthi, aged 24 years s/o Murugesan. The second respondent by order in Memo No.781/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 26.07.2016, has ordered to be detained the petitioner's son under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 branding him as “Goonda”, for a period of one year. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and we have also perused the records carefully.
3. Though, several grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this Habeas Corpus Petition, he would mainly contend that there has occurred a delay of 30 days in considering the representation made by the petitioner and which has caused serious prejudice to the detenu and the same would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that in fact, there had occurred 30 days of delay in considering the representation of the petitioner. But according to him, the delay has been explained by the Government.
5. But, we find no such explanation at all worth considering. We brought to the notice of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that this is not the only case but, in most of the cases which had come up before us, we have noticed that unnecessary delay has been caused in considering the representation made on behalf of the detenus, though, repeatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have imposing directions to the authorities concerned to dispose of such representations, without any delay.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that now, the Secretary to Government, Home Department, has issued Circular to all the authorities concerned, to avoid any such delay in future and has also further warned them that if any delay occurs at any level in the matter of considering the representation, appropriate action will be taken against the Officer who is in-charge.
7. In fact, the Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai has filed an affidavit also to that effect. We record the same. As we have found that there is inordinate delay of 30 days in considering the representation of the petitioner and the same has not been explained away, we find no option but to quash the detention order passed against the detenu, on this ground alone.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also brought to our notice that the detenu had not filed any bail application seeking bail before any Court, in the ground case. When that be so, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detaining authority has arrived at the subjective conclusion that there was real possibility of detenu coming out on bail in the ground case. Based on no material and on mere surmise, the detaining authority has come to such a conclusion. We find some force in the said argument also.
9. A perusal of the detention order would go to show that admittedly, the detenu had not moved any bail application before any Court, in respect of the ground case. When that be so, it is surprising as to how the detaining authority has come to the conclusion that there is a possibility of detenu coming out on bail in the ground case and may indulge in similar activities which would be detrimental to the public order. On this ground also, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
10. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.781/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 26.07.2016 is quashed. The detenu is set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
Speaking order/non-speaking order Index : Yes/no Note:- Issue copy on 27.03.2017 jbm/jer To
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St., George, Chennai – 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai – 7.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
(S.N.J.,) (A.S.M.J.,) 20.03.2017
S.NAGAMUTHU,J.
And
ANITA SUMANTH,J.,
jbm/jer H.C.P.No.1680 of 2016 20.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in