RAVICHANDRAN Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the father of the detenu/Saravanan, branded as a 'Goonda' in detention order, No. 19/Goonda/2014 dated 24.06.2014, by the 2nd respondent/District Collector and District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District, has sought for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

(2.) THE detenu has come to adverse notice of the police in three cases. The first case has been registered in Kamuthi Police Station Crime No. 10/2013, under sections 341, 294(b), 307 IPC; second adverse case has been registered in Mandalamanickam Police Station Crime No. 19/2014, under sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 323, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and third case has been registered in Kamuthi Police Station Crime No. 132/2014, under sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307 IPC r/w 120(b) IPC. All the cases are under investigation. Ground case has been registered in Kamuthi Police Station Crime No. 144/14 under sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307, and 506(ii) IPC r/w 25(1)(a) of Indian Arms Act, in which, the detenu has been remanded. On being satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detaining authority, has clamped a detention order, on the detenu. At paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has concluded as follows: -

(3.) FROM the proforma prepared by the Under Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department, Chennai, it could be seen that the representation submitted on behalf of the detenu dated 13.07.2013 is received by the Government on 17.07.2013 and remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 18.07.2013 and remarks were received on 24.07.2013. In between 18.07.2013 and 24.07.2013, there were 4 clear working days and 2 Government Holidays. Thus, there is unexplained delay in considering the representation. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions on the aspect of delay.