Madras High Court
Savarimuthu vs The Secretary To Government on 8 April, 2015
Author: A.Selvam
Bench: A.Selvam, V.S.Ravi
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.04.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1475 of 2014
Savarimuthu .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli. .. Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent made in his
proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.47/2014, dated 19.11.2014 in detaining the detenu
under Section 2(b) of Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Boot-Legger and quash the
same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Poongavanamery,
Wife of Velankanni, aged about 47 years, who is detained in Special Prison
for Women, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set her at liberty and pass
such further or other orders.
!For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
^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 Cr.M.P.No.47/2014, dated 19.11.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Poongavanamery, Wife of Velankanni and quash the same and thereby set her at liberty forthwith.
2.The Inspector of Police, Musiri @ Thuraiyur Prohibition Enforcement Wing 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.359 of 2013, Musiri @ Thuraiyur Prohibition Enforcement Wing, registered under Section 4(1)(K) of TNP Act, 1937.
(ii)Crime No.542 of 2013, Musiri @ Thuraiyur Prohibition Enforcement Wing, registered under Section 4(1)(K) of TNP Act, 1937.
(iii)Crime No.11 of 2014, Musiri @ Thuraiyur Prohibition Enforcement Wing, registered under Section 4(1)(K) of TNP Act, 1937.
(iv)Crime No.242 of 2014, Musiri @ Thuraiyur Prohibition Enforcement Wing, registered under Section 4(1)(K) of TNP Act, 1937.
(v)Crime No.368 of 2014, Manapparai Police Station, registered under Section 4(1)(K) of TNP Act, 1937.
(vi)Crime No.525 of 2014, Musiri @ Thuraiyur Prohibition Enforcement Wing, registered under Sections 4(1)(a) read with 4(1-A) of TNP Act, 1937.
(vii)Crime No.829 of 2014, Musiri @ Thuraiyur Prohibition Enforcement Wing, registered under Section 4(1)(K) of TNP Act, 1937.
3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 26.10.2014, the Inspector of Police, Musiri @ Thuraiyur Prohibition Enforcement Wing and others have conducted raid and at that time, the detenu has been found in possession of 15 bottles brandy without licence and consequently a case has been registered in Crime No.842 of 2014 under Sections 4(1)(a) read with 4(1- A) of TNP Act, 1937 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 her as 'Boot-legger' 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 brother 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 a representation has been submitted and the same is 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 representation submitted on the side of the detenu is 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, thirteen clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, five 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 representation submitted on the side of the detenu and that itself would affect her 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.47/2014, dated 19.11.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set A.SELVAM, J.
and V.S.RAVI, J.
smn the detenu viz., Poongavanamery, Wife of Velankanni at liberty forthwith, unless she is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.
[A.S.,J] [V.S.R.,J]
Index: Yes / No 08.04.2015
Internet: Yes / No
smn
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.1475 of 2014