Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

S.MANIKUMAR, J.

The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu/ Mayamperumal, branded as a 'Goonda' in Detention Order MHS.Confdl.No.22/2014 dated 21.04.2014, by the 2nd respondent/District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli, has sought for the present Writ of Habeas Corpus.

2. The Detenu has come to adverse notice of the police in four cases. The first case has been registered in Ambasamudram Police Station Crime No.290/2013, under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 302, 109 IPC, altered into Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 302, 109, 120(b); second case has been registered in Kallidaikurichi Police Station Crime No.25/2014, under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Prevention of Women Harassment Act 2002; third case has been registered in Ambasamudram Police Station Crime No.81/2014, under Sections 452, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of Tamilnadu Public Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act 1992, altered into Sections 452, 294(b), 324, 506(ii), 120(b) IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act 1992 and fourth case has been registered in Kadayam Police Station Crime No.102/2014, under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 IPC. The second adverse case is pending trial and rest of the cases are under investigation. Ground case has been registered on the file of Ambasamudram Police Station Crime No.97/2014, under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 IPC, in which, the detenu has been remanded. On being satisfied that the Detenu is indulging in activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Detaining Authority, has clamped the Detention Order, on the Detenu. At paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has concluded as follows:-

6. In the counter affidavit, the detaining authority has stated that in G.O(RT)No.2332, dated 02.05.2014, the Government have approved the order of detention, as per sub section (3) of section 3 of the Act. It is a settled legal position that within twelve days and before the date of approval, the said authority is at liberty to withdraw the order of detention, if a case is made out. After the approval of the Government, the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District/detaining authority has no jurisdiction or power, to pass any order on the representation. He has to only forward the representation of the detenu to the State Government. In this regard, it is worthwhile to extract following decisions:-

8. From the proforma prepared by the Under Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai, it could be seen that the representation dated 30.04.2014 on behalf of the petitioner is stated to have been received by the Government on 05.06.2014, which in our opinion runs contrary to the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Tirunelveli. While answering ground Nos.6 and 7, the District Collector, Tirunelveli, has stated that the representation dated 30.04.2014 submitted by the detenu's wife was received from the Government on 08.05.2014. On receipt of the representation dated 30.04.2014, remarks have been called for from the sponsoring authority on 08.05.2014. Remarks have been received on 08.05.2014 and sent on the same day, to the Government (i.e) on 08.05.2014 itself. Therefore, delay has to be computed from the date of receipt of the representation from the Government (i.e) 08.05.2014. Rejection letter has been prepared on 17.06.2014. In between 08.05.2014 and 17.06.2014, there are 26 clear working days and 12 Government Holidays. Delay in considering the representation has not been properly dealt with, in the counter affidavit. Explanation offered is also not satisfactory. There is a huge delay of 26 days.

2) The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

3) The Inspector of Police, Ambasamudram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.