Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Srikanth v. State of Tamilnadu, rep - H.C.P.No.470 of 2003 [2003] RD-TN 1000 (17 November 2003)


DATED: 17/11/2003





H.C.P.No.470 of 2003

Srikanth .... Petitioner -Vs-

1. State of Tamilnadu, rep.

by its Secretary,

Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police,

Greater Chennai, Egmore,

Chennai - 600 008. .... Respondents The Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus calling for the records in Detention Order dated 27.02.2003 bearing No.73/BDFGIS/2003 on the file of the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent herein to produce the body of the detenu Srikanth now confined in Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr. P. Venkatasubramanian

for M/s. R. Subhadradevi

For Respondents : Mr. M.K. Subramanian,

Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

:O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by P.K.MISRA,J)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of preventive detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Act 14 of 1982. Even though several contentions has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not necessary to refer to all the contentions, as in our opinion, the order of preventive detention is liable to be quashed on a ground relating to non-disposal of the representation made by the petitioner before the detaining authority.

3. The order of detention was passed on 27.02.2003 by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. In ground No.(VII), the petitioner has specifically asserted that the representation sent by him to the second respondent, namely, the Commissioner, on 06.03.2003 was not considered. It has been stated that "The non consideration of this representation violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India".

4. Even though the writ petition was admitted on 26.03.2003 and notice was obviously served within a few days, counter affidavit has not been filed refuting the aforesaid contention.

5. Today, the learned counsel representing the State seeks adjournment to file counter. We are not inclined to grant any further time, as we find that at request of State, the case was adjourned on two other occasions. When the personal liberty of a person is involved, it is expected that the authorities should act promptly without any delay. The representation was made on 06.03.2003 and from the acknowledgement, it is seen that such representation was received on 07.03.20 03. The non-filing of counter makes it clear that such representation has not been considered.

6. It is of course true that the detention order has been subsequently approved by the Government. When the representation had been made to the detaining authority before such approval was made, it was the duty of the detaining authority either to consider the same or to send the same to the Government and to place the same before the Advisory Board for consideration.

7. Similar view had been taken by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1330 of 2002, which was disposed on 18.12.2002 (Selvarani V. State of Tamilnadu & Another) and by a Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.2146 of 2002, which was disposed of on 25.03.2003.

8. In the absence of any such material, we are constrained to observe that such representation of the petitioner made before the second respondent has not all been considered. On this ground alone, the order of preventive detention is quashed. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with some other case.





1. The Secretary,

State of Tamilnadu,

Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai  600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police,

Greater Chennai, Egmore,

Chennai - 600 008.

3. The Superintendent of Police,

Central Prison, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor

High Court, Madras.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.