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.85 of 2011 Vijay Gopalakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State Rep.by The District Collector & District Magistrate, Tiruneveli, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. ... 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.1 in No.MHS. Confdl.No.67/2010 dated 02.11.2010 by setting aside the said order of detention passed by the 1st respondent and setting the detenue Chelladurai @ Alex, aged about 29 years son of Rajendran at liberty now detained in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.P.Jothi,APP ORDER (Order of this Court was made by G.M.AKBAR ALI,J.) The petitioner is the brother of the detenu, namely, Chelladurai @ Alex aged 29 years son of Rajendran. Challenging an Order of Detention made by the 1st respondent in No.MHS.Confdl.67/2010 dated 02.11.2010 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. 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 8 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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 07.02.2011. Thus, there was a delay of 6 days, out of which, 2 days happened to be holidays and in effect, there was a delay of 4 days in considering the representation, which remains unexplained. Apart from that, at another stage, there was delay of 8 days. Though File was circulated to Hon'ble Minister (Law, Courts and Prisons) on 09.02.2011, rejection letter was prepared only on 14.02.2011. In the interregnum, there was delay of 6 days, out of which 2 days were holidays, the remaining 4 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 No.MHS.Confdl.67/2010 dated 02.11.2010 passed by the 1st 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(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,Chennai-9. 2.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Tiruneveli,Tirunelveli District. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. 4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai 9. H.C.P.(MD)No.85 of 2011 24.06.2011 nbj SMA/4.7.2011/5C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/