Madras High Court
Kumaravel vs State Represented By on 19 March, 2015
Author: A.Selvam
Bench: A.Selvam, T.Mathivanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.03.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1465 of 2014
Kumaravel .. Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department,
Secretariat,
George Fort,
Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
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 on
the file of the second respondent in Detention Order No.74/BCDFGISSV/2014 and
set-aside the order of detention passed therein dated 27.11.2014, direct the
respondents to produce the detenu by name Ramesh @ Aavin Ramesh, aged 35
years, son of Kumaravel, before this Court now detained at Central prison,
Madurai, and set him at liberty forthwith and pass such further or other
orders.
!For Petitioner : Mr.J.William Christopher
^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 No.74/BCDFGISSV/2014, dated 27.11.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Ramesh @ Aavin Ramesh, Son of Kumaravel and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
2.The Inspector of Police, D.1 Tallakulam 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 case:
?Crime No.938 of 2014, D.1 Tallakulam Police Station registered under Sections 147, 148, 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code?.
3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 17.09.2014, one Chandran, Son of Govindu as complainant has given a complaint in D.1 Tallakulam Police Station against the detenu and others and the same has been registered in Crime No.943 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 302 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 'Goonda' 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 father of the detenu as petitioner.
5.On the side of the respondents a detailed 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 four representation have been submitted and the same have not been disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
7.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that all the representations submitted on the side of the detenu have 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 with regard to first representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, six clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, three clear working days are available and with regard to second representation in between Column Nos.12 and 13, three clear working days are available and with regard to third representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, one clear working day is available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, thirteen clear working days are available and with regard to fourth representation in between Column Nos.12 and 13, thirteen 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 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 No.74/BCDFGISSV/2014, dated 27.11.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Ramesh @ Aavin Ramesh, Son of Kumaravel at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.
[A.S.,J] [T.M.,J] 19.03.2015 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No smn To 1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department, Secretariat, George Fort, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
A.SELVAM, J.
and T.MATHIVANAN, J.
smn ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.1465 of 2014 19.03.2015