1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI H.C.P.(MD) No.58 of 2011 Muthukali ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort.St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 3.The Inspector of Police, E1-K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai. ..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned detention order passed in No.114/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 15.12.2010 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce that body of the petitioner namely as Valli, W/o.Subramani, aged 46 years, now confined in Special Prison for Women at Trichy, before this court and set her at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.A.P.Muthu Pandian For respondents : Mr. Daniel Manoharan, Addl.Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by G.M.AKBAR ALI, J) The petitioner is the daughter of the detenue, namely, Valli. Challenging an Order of Detention made by the second respondent in No.114/BDFGISSV/2010 on 15.12.2010 branding the detenue 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 assailing the order of the detention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that there are unexplained delay of seven days in considering the representation of the detenue 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. 4.The only ground alleged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is delay in considering the representation. According to proforma produced, the representation was given on 13.01.2011, which was received on 18.01.2011. However, the remarks were received only on 21.01.2011. From the proforma it is noted that there is a delay of seven days in considering the file by the Government. Even according to the respondents, there was a delay of four days, excepts the holidays of three days, 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 No.114/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 15.12.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue is directed to be released forthwith unless her presence is required in connection with any other case. MPK SD/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR[ACCOUNTS] /TRUE COPY/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort.St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 3.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Trichy. 4.The Inspector of Police, E1-K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai. 5.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public[Law & Order] Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. + 1 cc to Mr.A.P.Muthupandian, Advocate SR.No.15669. H.C.P.(MD) No.58 of 2011 Dated:27.04.2011 2P/8C RPB 25.05.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/