Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ammu v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by - H.C.P. No.352 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 477 (19 July 2005)

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated: 19/07/2005


The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice AR.RAMALINGAM

H.C.P. No.352 of 2005

Ammu ..Petitioner


1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by
its Secretary,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,

2. The District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Vellore District,
Vellore. ..Respondents

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to
the detention order in C3.D.O.No.5/2005 dated 11.03.2005 passed by the second
respondent under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenu Mathi, son of Raji, who is now confined in
Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set the detenu at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Semmalai

For Respondents : Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam,
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)


(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.,) The wife of the detenu challenges the detention order dated 11.03.20 05, detaining her husband, namely, Mathi as a Bootlegger under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

2. At the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate detention order passed by the second respondent.

3. With reference to the same, the learned Government Advocate ( Criminal Side) has furnished details, which show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 29.03.2005; remarks were called for on 30.03.2005; remarks were received on 15.04.2005 and thereafter, the file was submitted for orders on 21.04.2005. The same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 2 1.04.2005 and the Minister for Prohibition and Excise has passed an order on the same day. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 27.04.2005. The said letter was sent to the Superintendent, Central Prison on 28.04.2005 and the same was served to the detenu on 3 0.04.2005. The above mentioned details show that there was delay at the hands of the detaining authority and even after obtaining order from the competent authority, namely, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise, the rejection letter was prepared only on 27.04.2005. In the absence of proper explanation by the Officer/authority concerned, we hold that the detenu was prejudiced in consideration of his representation, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. On this ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

4. Under these circumstances, the impugned order of detention is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.





1. The Secretary to Government,

Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St.George,


2. The District Magistrate and

District Collector,

Vellore District,


3. The Superintendent,

Central Prison,


(in duplicate for communication to detenu)

4. The Joint Secretary to Government,

Public (Law & Order),

Fort St.George,


5. 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.