D.DHANALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu namely, Dhanasekaran, son of Chandran, aged 37 years challenging the Detention Order passed by the second respondent, dated 11.10.2019 in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.V.No.32 of 2019, wherein, he has been branded as "Goonda".

(2.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that even though several grounds have been raised to assail the impugned Detention Order, he has confined his arguments on two grounds. According to the learned counsel, there is no proper intimation of the order of detention either to the family member of the detenu or to his relatives and hence the valuable rights of the detenue in making effective representation to the Authorities concerned for revocation of the detention order got seriously affected. It is further further contended by the learned counsel that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India have not been followed in this case and that the representation of the Petitioner was not considered in time and there is unexplained and inordinate delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation, which would vitiate the impugned order of detention.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.V.Neelakandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, would argue that the Detention Order came to be passed hased on the cogent and relevant materials produced by the Sponsoring Authority and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned detention order. It is further submitted that there is proper intimation of the order of detention and there is no delay in considering the representation of the detenu and prayed for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.