1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI H.C.P.(MD)No.111 of 2011 G.Kala : Petitioner Vs. 1.State represented by The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. : Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records from the first respondent in No.MHS.Confdl.02/2011, dated 19.01.2011 by setting aside the said order of detention passed by the first respondent and setting the detenu Gangatharan, aged about 33 years S/o.Mookaiya Asari at liberty now detained in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai. For petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhu For respondents : Mr.D.Ramar, Addl.Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN,J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Gangatharan. Challenging an Order of Detention made by the first respondent in No.MHS.Confdl.02/2011, dated 19.01.2011 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 while assailing the order of the detention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that there are unexplained delay of 4 days in considering the representation of the detenu and therefore, the detention order is vitiated. Apart from that, at another stage, there was delay of 4 days. Though File was circulated to Hon'ble Minister (Law, Courts and Prisons) on 18.02.2011, rejection letter was prepared only on 25.02.2011. In the interregnum, there was a delay of 6 days, out of which 2 days were holidays, the remaining 4 days delay were not explained. 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 representation of the detenu was received on 07.02.2011, remarks were called for on 08.02.2011 but remarks were received only on 15.02.2011. 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 6 days. Though File was circulated to Hon'ble Minister (Law, Courts and Prisons) on 18.02.2011, rejection letter was prepared only on 25.02.2011. In the interregnum, there was a delay of 6 days, out of which 2 days were holidays, the remaining 4 days delay was 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. When there is an unexplained delay, we are of the considered view that the detention order is vitiated and we are not persuaded with the other grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Hence, the detention order in No.MHS.Confdl.02/2011, dated 19.01.2011 passed by the first 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 (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 TO 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI – 9. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI. 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC (LAW & ORDER) FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI -9. 5. THE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, KALLIDAIKURICHI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 7. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. H.C.P.(MD)No.111 of 2011 14.06.2011 MPK NSV/5.7.11/3P/8C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/