High CourtsDivision Bench

P. Selvam vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court · Decided on 18 April 2006 · Citation: (2006) 04 MAD CK 0192

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Sathasivam, J · J.A.K. Sampathkumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers, Act, 1982 — Section 3(1)
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 106 of 2006
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 300 words

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name P. Selvam, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 31.07.2005, detaining his friend

Kizhinjavayan @ Sakthivel, as ""Goonda"" u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest

Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short ""Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"").

2.

Heard both sides.

3.

Even at the foremost the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the

detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the said claim the learned Government Advocate has placed details, which

show that the representation of the detenue dated 15.01.2006 was received by the Government on 19.01.2006, reminder was sent on

20.01.2006 and remarks were received on 27.01.2006. After receipt of the remarks, the file was submitted on the same day and it was dealt with

by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 30.01.2006; order was passed by the Minister for Prohibition and Excise on 31.01.2006,

rejection letter was prepared on 07.02.2006; the same was sent to the detenu on 08.02.2006 and the rejection letter was served on the detenu on

10.02.2006. As rightly pointed out though the concerned Minister has passed an order on 31.01.2006, there is no explanation or reason for not

forwarding the same to the detenu till 10.02.2006. In the absence of any explanation, we hold that the delay between 31.01.2006 and 10.02.2006

is enormous. On this ground, the impugned detention order is vitiated and the same is quashed; accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order of

detention impugned in the petition is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in

connection with any other case.