1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI H.C.P.(MD)No.79 of 2011 Panchavarnam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai. ... Respondents PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in No.02/BDFGISSV/2011 dated 04.01.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's son by name Muthupandi @ Mark Muthupandi, son of Vazhivittan aged about 29 years detained in Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.P.Jothi,APP ORDER (Order of this Court was made by G.M.AKBAR ALI,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, namely, Muthupandi @ Mark Muthupandi aged 29 years son of Vazhivittan. Challenging an Order of Detention made by the 2nd respondent in No.02/BDFGISSV/2011 dated 04.01.2011 branding the detenu as a “Goonda” under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), this Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Advancing the arguments assailing the order of the detention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that there are unexplained delay of 19 days at two stages in considering the representation of the detenu and therefore, the detention order is vitiated. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 4. It is seen from the Proforma produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor before this Court that the first representation of the detenu was received on 31.01.2011, remarks were called for on 01.02.2011 but remarks were received only on 10.02.2011. Thus, there was a delay of 10 days, out of which, 2 days happened to be holidays and in effect, there was a delay of 8 days in considering the representation, which remains unexplained. Apart from that, at another stage, there was delay of 13 days. Though File was circulated to Hon'ble Minister (Law, Courts and Prisons) on 15.02.2011, rejection letter was prepared only on 25.02.2011. In the interregnum, there was delay of 13 days, out of which 2 days were holidays, the remaining 11 days delay were not explained. 5. Such unexplained delay in considering the representation would amount to deprivation of making effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the detention order in 02/BDFGISSV/2011 dated 04.01.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai. 4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai-9 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. nbj rl/6c – 4.7.2011 H.C.P.(MD)No.79 of 2011 24.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/