REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Krishna Latha Appellant

V/S

STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

R.P. GOYAL VS. STATE [REFERRED]
PRABHU DAYAL DEORAH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,KAMRUP AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
BINOD SINGH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,DHANBAD [REFERRED]
RIVADENEYTA RICARDO AGUSTIN VS. GOVERNMENT OF DELHI [REFERRED]
RAJAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
ASLAM AHMED ZAHIRE AHMED SHAIK V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
SUMAIYA VS THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [REFERRED]
D.M. NAGARAJA VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
JAKKULIN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOME,PROHIBITION AND EXCISE (IX) DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,CHENNAI AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
UMMU SABEENA VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
JAYANARAYAN SUKUL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
RASHID SK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
TARA CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED]
RAGHAVENDRA SINGH VS. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL KANPUR [REFERRED]
RAMA DHONDU BORADE VS. V K SARAF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [REFERRED]
MAHESH KUMAR CHAUHAN ALIAS BANTI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
K M ABDULLA KUNHI AND B L ABDUL KHADER VS. UNION OF INDIA STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
RAM SUKRYA MHATRE VS. R D TYAGI [REFERRED]
KAMLESHKUMAR ISHWARDAS PATEL UNION OF INDIA OTHERS UNION OF INDIA HANSABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
USHA AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
REKHA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
RAMAMURTHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
VENKATESAN ALIAS MAYA VENKATESAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
G KALAISELVI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
SENTHIL KUMAR VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 20.07.2011, made in P.D. No. 17/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Rajan, confined in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and to set him at liberty. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, dated 20.07.2011, under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), read with the order issued by the State Government, in G.O.(D) No. 136, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of Rajan, in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, terming him as a 'Goonda'.

(2.) Even though various grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in the present Habeas Corpus petition, while challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the detention order passed by the second respondent, on 20.7.2011, is liable to be set aside, merely on the ground of delay in the disposal of the representation, dated 24.8.2011, made on behalf of the detenu.

(3.) (1). It has been pointed out that the remarks, relating to the representation made on behalf of the detenu, had been called for, on 29.8.2011. The remarks had been received, on 3.10.2011. As such, there has been a delay of 35 days. Between 29.8.2011 and 3.10.2011, 13 days, i.e., 31.8.2011, 1.9.2011, 3.9.2011, 4.9.2011, 9.9.2011, 11.9.2011, 17.9.2011, 18.9.2011, 24.9.2011, 25.9.2011, 30.9.2011, 1.9.2011 and 2.9.2011 were government holidays. Thus, there has been an actual delay of 22 days, on the first count.

Click here to view full judgment.

KRISHNA LATHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address