1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:16.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD).No.630 of 2011 Baby :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep, by Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai 9. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 3.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District. :Respondents PRAYER:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in P.D.No.14 of 2011, dated 08.07.2011 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, Jesus Christopher @ Unniappan, S/o.Chellappan, aged about 38 years, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Karthik For Mr.S.Deenadhalayan For Respondents: Mr.T.Mohan,Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER [Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J] The petitioner is the mother-in-law of one Mr.Jesus Christopher @ Unniappan, S/o.Chellappan, who has been detained under the provisions of the Tamil Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Book-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), as per the orders of the second respondent, by his proceedings in P.D.No.14 of 2011, dated 08.07.2011. He has been lodged in Central Prison at Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District from 09.07.2011. Seeking to quash the said Detention Order and to set the detenu at liberty, the petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.Admittedly, the Detention Order was passed on 08.07.2011. Thereafter, the detenu made a representation to the Government on 27.07.2011 and the same was received by the Government on 01.08.2011. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 02.08.2011. But, the remarks were received belatedly on 16.08.2011. Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary to the Government placed the papers before the Hon'ble Minister for orders on 18.08.2011. However, the representation was rejected only on 27.08.2011. Thus, between 02.08.2011 and 16.08.2011, there had been a delay of nine days and subsequently, between 18.08.2011 and 27.08.2011, there had been a delay of 7 days. 3.Even though several grounds were raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground of delay. The above delay, on two occasions, has not been properly explained, which has caused serious prejudice to the detenu. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the delay itself is the sufficient ground to quash the proceedings as per the settled law. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced a proforma detailing the dates and events. He is not in a position to dispute the above factual aspects. 5.As we have narrated above, admittedly, out of nine intervening days between 02.08.2011 and 16.08.2011, five days were holidays, and thus, there is a delay of nine days. Similarly, between 18.08.2011 and 27.08.2011, there is a delay of seven days. This delay has not been properly explained at all by the respondents. As has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on several occasions, the unexplained delay itself is the ground to quash the proceedings. In view of the above, we are inclined to quash the Detention Order passed by the second respondent. 6.In view of the fact that we are inclined to quash the proceedings on the ground of delay alone, we do not propose to go into the other grounds raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition. 7.In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in P.D.No.14 of 2011, dated 08.07.2011, is quashed. The detenu, by name, Jesus Christopher @ Unniappan, S/o.Chellappan, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To: 1.The by Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai 9. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 3.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. NB RP/01.12.2011/3P/5C. ORDER MADE IN HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD).No.630 of 2011 16.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/