Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR, JJ.
Babu - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others - Respondents
H.C.P. Nos. 1839, 1841 of 2022
Decided On : 27-03-2023
Habeas Corpus Petition - Detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 - Act 14 of 1982 - The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 - Sections 2(b), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 - The court found that the delay of 15 days in considering the representation vitiates the impugned detention order, and emphasized that the delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances, and the trajectory the representation has taken. The impugned detention order was set aside, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
Fact of the Case:
A Habeas Corpus Petition was filed to challenge a preventive detention order made under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The impugned detention order was based on the detenu being a 'Bootlegger' under Section 2(b) of Act 14 of 1982, due to alleged offenses under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay of 15 days in considering the representation vitiates the impugned detention order, and emphasized that the delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances, and the trajectory the representation has taken.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in considering the representation sent regarding the impugned detention order.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances, and the trajectory the representation has taken.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, the impugned detention order was set aside, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner''s father detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 01.09.2022 on the file of second respondent herein and made in proceedings D.O.No.C2/47/2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner''s father namely Boopathi son of Tholan, aged about 32 years before this Court and set the petitioner''s father at liberty from detention, now the petitioner''s father detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore.)
M. Sundar, J.
1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by son of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 01.09.2022 bearing reference D.O.No.C2/47/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
2. Impugned detention order has been made under ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Bootlegger'' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of Act 14 of 1982.
3. There is one adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.237 of 2022 on the file of Kallakurichi Prohibition Enforcement Wing for alleged offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4. Mr.V.Paarthiban, learned counsel representing Mr.R.Sasikumar, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel for all respondents are before us.
5. Though several grounds have been urged in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing exhorted one point in his campaign against the impugned detention order and that one point turns on delay in considering a representation sent qua impugned detention order.
6. Responding to the aforementioned submission, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to the contrary and placed before us a list of dates and the details of the same are as follows:
| 'Representation dated | 12.09.2022 |
| Representation received dated | 15.09.2022 |
| File submitted on dated | 30.09.2022 |
| Under Secretary dealt with on | 30.09.2022 |
| Deputy Secretary dealt with on | 30.09.2022 |
| Minister dealt with and file received on | 10.10.2022 |
| Rejected letter prepared on | 10.10.2022 |
| Rejection letter sent to the detenu on | 11.10.2022 |
Govt. Holidays falls on:
18.09.2022, 24.09.2022, 25.09.2022, 01.10.2022, 02.10.2022, 04.10.2022, 05.10.2022, 08.10.2022, 09.10.2022.
| S.No. | Representation | Column 6 to 7 | Column 9 to 10 |
| 1. | No. of days | 15 | 9 |
| 2. | No. of holidays | 3 | 6 |
|
| Total delay days | 12 | 3 |
|
|
|
| Total 15 days delay |
7. We find that even if the intervening 9 public/Government holidays 18.09.2022, 24.09.2022, 25.09.2022, 01.10.2022, 02.10.2022, 04.10.2022, 05.10.2022, 08.10.2022 and 09.10.2022 are excluded, there is a delay of 15 days in considering the representation. We make it clear that the delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot
AI
The delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances, and the trajectory....
The delay in considering the representation can vitiate a preventive detention order, and must be decided qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Delay in considering a representation regarding a preventive detention order can vitiate the detention order and must be decided qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances.
The delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively, but has to be decided qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances,....
The delay in considering a representation against a preventive detention order, which vitiates the impugned detention order.
The delay in considering the representation against preventive detention orders must be decided qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances, and a delay of four days was found to vitiate the i....
The delay in considering the representation against preventive detention orders must be decided qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances, and a delay of four days was found to vitiate the i....
The delay in considering the representation against a preventive detention order must be justified and must not violate the detenu's rights under the Constitution of India.
The delay in considering representation in preventive detention cases cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
