REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MUTHUPANDI Appellant

V/S

STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ASLAM AHMED ZAHIRE AHMED SHAIK V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SUMAIYA VS. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9 AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
JAKKULIN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE (IX) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
JAYANARAYAN SUKUL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
RASHID SK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU DAYAL DEORAH RAJ KUMAR DEORAH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KAMRUP:DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KAMRUP [REFERRED TO]
TARA CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAGHAVENDRA SINGH VS. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL KANPUR [REFERRED TO]
BINOD SINGH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DHANBAD BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAMA DHONDU BORADE VS. V K SARAF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KUMAR CHAUHAN ALIAS BANTI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K M ABDULLA KUNHI AND B L ABDUL KHADER VS. UNION OF INDIA STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
RAM SUKRYA MHATRE VS. R D TYAGI [REFERRED TO]
RIVADENEYTA RICARDO AGUSTIN VS. GOVERNMENT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
RAJAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
REKHA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
D M NAGARAJA VS. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
RAMAMURTHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
G KALAISELVI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
SENTHIL KUMAR VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 16.08.2012, made in No.112/BDFGISSV/2012, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, M.Esakkiraj, son of Muthupandi, aged about 23 years, confined in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, dated 16.08.2012, under sub-section (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 orders issued by the State Government, in G.O.(D).No.118/Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2012, under sub-section (2) of Section

(3.) IT has also been pointed out that the representation made on behalf of the detenu, dated 25.08.2012, was received, on 28.08.2012, and the remarks were called for, on 30.08.2012. The remarks had been received, only on 10.09.2012., after a delay of 11 days, out of which 4 days i.e. 01.09.2012, 02.09.2012, 08.09.2012 and 09.09.2012 were government holidays. As such, there has been an actual delay of seven days in dealing with the representation made on behalf of the detenu.

Click here to view full judgment.

MUTHUPANDI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address