AMUDHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu/Kavi alias Kaviarasan, branded as a 'Bootlegger' in Detention Order Cr.M.P. No.29/2014 dated 10.06.2014, by the 2nd respondent/District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli, has sought for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

(2.) THE detenu has come to adverse notice of the police in four cases. The first case has been registered in Cuddalore District, Cuddalore PEW Crime No. 976/2009, under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1 -A) (Transport) @ 4(1)(aaa) (Transport) TNP Act; second case has been registered in Ariyalur District Ariyalur PEW Crime No. 107/2010, under Sections 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1 -A) (Transport) @ 4(1)(aaa) (Transport) TNP Act, 1937; third case has been registered in Villupuram District Villupuram PEW Crime No. 669/2013 under Sections 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1 -A) TNP Act r/w 468 and 471 IPC and fourth case has been registered in Villupuram District Villupuram PEW Crime No. 03/2014 under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1 -A) TNP Act. Adverse cases 1 and 2 are pending trial and 3 and 4 are under investigation. Ground case has been registered in Crime No. 285/2014 on the file of the Inspector of Police, PEW, Musiri at Thuraiyur, under Sections 4(1)(g), 4(1)(a), 13A[1] r/w 4(1 -A) (Transport) T.N.P. Act 1937, 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 counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, it could be seen that the representation dated 16.06.2014 on behalf of the petitioner is stated to have been received by the Government on 23.06.2014 and remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 09.07.2014 and remarks were received on 22.07.2014. In between 09.07.2014 and 22.07.2014, there were 9 clear working and 4 Government Holidays. Thus, there is unexplained delay of 9 days in sending the remarks. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions on the aspect of delay.