High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Ramu v. The Commissioner of Police - H.C.P.No.321 OF 2005  RD-TN 449 (5 July 2005)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM
H.C.P.No.321 OF 2005
Ramu .. Petitioner -Vs-
1.The Commissioner of Police,
2.The Govt.of Tamil Nadu
rep.by the Secretary
Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat, Chennai-9 .. Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed to call for the records of detention order made in BDFGIS.V.No.50/2005 dated 17.2.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Ramu, S/o.Veerabadran, now confined in Central Prison, Chennai before this court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :: Mrs.Veeramarthini
For Respondents :: Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathnam, Government Advocate
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.,) The petitioner who was detained as a "Goonda" under Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 17.2.2005, challenges the same in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. Even at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of unexplained delay in consideration of the representation of the detenu, the ultimate order passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed. With reference to the said claim, learned Government Advocate has placed the relevant details, which show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 2.3.2005, remarks were called on 3.3.2005, remarks were received on 7.3.2 005 and file was submitted on 8.3.2005. Thereafter the file was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 9.3.2005. The Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed order on 10.3.2005 rejecting his representation. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 21.3.2005 and ultimately the same was served to the detenu on 22.3 .2005. There is no explanation for taking 11 days time for preparation of rejection letter even after the disposal of the said representation by the authority concerned. In the absence of any explanation, we hold that the unexplained delay has caused prejudice to the detenu in consideration of his representation effectively. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
3. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 17.2.2005 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody, unless he is required in connection with any other case.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.