1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI H.C.P.(MD)No.54 of 2011 Selvaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State Rep.by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 3.The Superintendent of Police, 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.117/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 20.12.2010 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's son by name Rajeshkumar son of Selvaraj aged about 23 years detained in Madurai Central Prison before this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.Danial Manoharan,APP ORDER (Order of this Court was made by G.M.AKBAR ALI,J.) The petitioner is the father of the detenu, namely, Rajeshkumar. Challenging an Order of Detention made by the 2nd respondent in No.117/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 20.12.2010 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 6 days and 16 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 18.01.2011. 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 6 days in considering the representation, which remains unexplained. Apart from that, at another stage, there was delay of 16 days. Though File was circulated to Hon'ble Minister (Law, Courts and Prisons) on 21.01.2011, rejection letter was prepared only on 07.02.2011. In the interregnum, there was delay of 16 days, out of which 6 days were holidays, the remaining 10 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. Accordingly, the detention order in No.117/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 20.12.2010 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/- 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 Magistrate and District Collector, Madurai 3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai. 4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order),Fort St.George, Chennai 9. 5.The Commissioner of Police,Madurai City. 6.The Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, Chennai 4. 7.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. H.C.P.(MD)No.54 of 2011 18.03.2011 nbj SMA/28.4.2011/8C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/