Madras High Court
Ram @ Ramarajan vs The State Rep. By on 27 April, 2016
Bench: A.Selvam, B.Gokuldas
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.GOKULDAS
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.98 of 2016
Ram @ Ramarajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep. by
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur. .. Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying 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 P.D.No.68 of 2015 dated 08.11.2015 in detaining
the detenu under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a GOONDA and quash the same
and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Ram @ Ramarajan, Son
of Jeganathan, Male, aged about 27 years, who is detained in Central Prison,
Tiruchirapalli before this Court and set him at liberty.
!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 P.D.No.68/2015 dated 08.11.2015 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the petitioner/ detenu by name Ram @ Ramarajan, Son of Jeganathan and quash the same.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the petitioner/detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:
(i)Crime No.137 of 2015 on the file of Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station registered under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 @ Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302, 120(b) and 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 @ Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302, 120(b) and 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
(ii)Crime No.219 of 2015 on the file of Thiruneelagudi Police Station registered under Sections 294(b), 386 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
(iii)Crime No.240 of 2015 on the file of Natchiyarkovil Police Station registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 386 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
3.Further it is averred in the affidavit that on 02.09.2015 the petitioner/detenu has committed certain offences and ultimately a case has been registered in Crime No.338 of 2015 on the file of Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station under Sections 294(b), 386 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the petitioner/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 petitioner/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 detenu himself 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/detenu has contended that on the side of the petitioner/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 petitioner/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, six clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, twelve clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay and that itself would affect the rights of the petitioner/detenu 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 P.D.No.68/2015 dated 08.11.2015 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the petitioner/detenu viz., Ram @ Ramarajan, Son of Jeganathan at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.
To
1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..