Madras High Court
Vasugi vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 15 April, 2015
Author: A.Selvam
Bench: A.Selvam, V.S.Ravi
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.04.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1441 of 2014
Vasugi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
its Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai ? 9.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Madurai District,
Madurai. .. Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus praying to call for the records
pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent made in his
proceedings C.M.P.No.23/2014, dated 18.11.2014 and quash the same and set the
petitioner's husband by name Karal Marx, S/o.Ganesan, aged about 34 years, at
liberty from Central Prison, Madurai.
!For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
for M/s.K.J.Associates
For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh,
Addl.Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
(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 records relating to detention order passed in C.M.P.No.23/2014, dated 18.11.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Karal Marx, Son of Ganesan and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
2.The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Melur as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:
(i)Crime No.222 of 2012, Checkanoorani Police Station, registered under Section 4(1)(A) TNP Act @ 4(1)(a) TNP Act.
(ii)Crime No.317 of 2012, Usilampatti Prohibition Enforcement Wing, registered under Section 4(1)(K) TNP Act.
(iii)Crime No.192 of 2012, Checkanoorani Police Station, registered under Section 4(1)(A) TNP Act @ 4(1)(a) TNP Act.
(iv)Crime No.65 of 2013, Usilampatti Prohibition Enforcement Wing, registered under Section 4(1)(a) TNP Act.
(v)Crime No.192 of 2013, Usilampatti Prohibition Enforcement Wing, registered under Section 4(1)(K) TNP Act.
(vi)Crime No.86 of 2014, Usilampatti Prohibition Enforcement Wing, registered under Sections 4(1)(a) and 24 of TNP Act.
(vii)Crime No.700 of 2014, Thuirumangalam Prohibition Enforcement Wing, registered under Sections 4(1)(a) and 24 of TNP Act read with 328 I.P.C. @ Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(g), 4(1)(h) and 24 of TNP Act read with Sections 328, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C.
3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 15.10.2014, the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Melur has found the detenu in possession of illicit arrack and consequently a case has been registered in Crime No.796 of 2014 under Section 4(1)(aaa) TNP Act and also under Sections 484 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
4.The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately branded him as 'Bootlegger' by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu as petitioner.
5.On the side of the respondents a counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the detenu a representation has been submitted and the same has not been disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
7.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 detention order in question does not call for any interference.
8.On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that in between Column Nos.7 to 9, nine clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, two clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such huge delay in disposing of the representation submitted on the side of the detenu and that itself would affect his rights 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 passed in C.M.P.No.23/2014, dated 18.11.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Karal Marx, Son of Ganesan at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.
[A.S.,J] [V.S.R.,J] 15.04.2015 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No smn To
1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai ? 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai District, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
A.SELVAM, J.
and V.S.RAVI, J.
smn ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.1441 of 2014 15.04.2015