1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI H.C.P.(MD) No.32 of 2011 S.A.K.Seyyathu Rabhia .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 3.The Secretary, Advisory Board, Coovam House, Omanthurar Government Estate, Swami Sivanantha Salai, Chennai. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the body of detenu namely Hasan @ Mohamed Hasan, aged about 32 years son of Mohamed Nagoor Meeran before this Court who is now detained in the Palayamkottai Central Prison in pursuant to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.50/2010 dated 13.12.2010 to call for the records and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For respondents : Mr.P.N.Pandidurai Addl.Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by G.M.AKBAR ALI,J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Hasan @ Mohamed Hasan. Challenging an Order of Detention made by the 2nd respondent in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.50/2010 dated 13.12.2010 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 20 days 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 10.01.2011, remarks were called for on 11.01.2011 but remarks were received only on 01.02.2011. Thus, there was a delay of 20 days, out of which, 6 days happened to be holidays and in effect, there was a delay of 14 days in considering the representation, which remains unexplained. 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 H.S.(M) Confdl.No.50/2010 dated 13.12.2010 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/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME, PROHIBITION & EXCISE (XVI) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, FORT ST.GEOERGE, CHENNAI-9. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, O/O.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, TUTICORIN. 3. THE SECRETARY ADVISORY BOARD, COOVAM HOUSE, OMANTHURAR GOVERNMENT ESTATE, SWAMI SIVANANDHA SALAI,CHENNAI. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. 6. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC (LAW & ORDER), FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI - 9. 7.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. + 1 cc to Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, Advocate, SR No.14487 H.C.P.(MD)No.32 of 2011 21.04.2011 nbj RJ/25.5.11 2p/9c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/