Madras High Court
Murugesan vs The Secretary To The Government on 20 March, 2015
Author: A.Selvam
Bench: A.Selvam, T.Mathivanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.03.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1287 of 2014
Murugesan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate
and District Collector,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District. .. 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 entire
records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in
Cr.M.P.No.20/2014 (Bootlegger) dated 05.11.2014 and quash the same and direct
the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name
Murugesan, Son of Rajamani Nadar, aged about 51 years, now detained in
Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith
and pass such further or other orders.
!For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
^For Respondents : Mr.A.Ramar,
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 Cr.M.P.No.20/2014 (Bootlegger) dated 05.11.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Murugesan, Son of Rajamani Nadar and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
2.The Inspector of Police, Dhalavaipuram Police Station 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.102 of 2012, Veerakeralampudur Police Station registered under Sections 353, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) and 14(A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.
(ii)Crime No.168 of 2013, Dhalavaipuram Police Station registered under Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1) (aa) 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act read with Sections 486, 272 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 21.08.2014, the detenu and others are found in possession of some brandy bottles and under the said circumstances a case has been registered in Crime No.456 of 2014 under Sections 4(1-a), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) and 24 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act read with Sections 486 and 270 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 detenu himself as petitioner.
5.On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended inter alia 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/detenu has contended that on the side of the petitioner/detenu two representations have been submitted and the same are not 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 representations submitted on the side of the petitioner/detenu are 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 with regard to first representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, five clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, eleven clear working days are available and with regard to second representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, eight clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, seven clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to huge delay in disposing of the representations submitted on the side of the petitioner/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 Cr.M.P.No.20/2014 (Bootlegger) dated 05.11.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the petitioner/detenu viz., Murugesan, Son of Rajamani Nadar at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.
[A.S.,J] [T.M.,J] Index : Yes/No 20.03.2015 Internet : Yes/ No smn A.SELVAM, J. and T.MATHIVANAN, J. smn To 1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.1287 of 2014 20.03.2015