LATHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu/Vel Murugan, branded as a 'Goonda' in Detention Order, P.D. No. 8 of 2014 dated 09.04.2014, by the 2nd respondent/District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, has sought for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

(2.) THE detenu has come to adverse notice of the police in eight cases. The first case has been registered in Modaicaud Police Station Crime No. 42/2011, under sections 454, 380 IPC; second case has been registered in Modaicaud Police Station Crime No. 43/2011, under sections 454, 380 IPC; third case has been registered in Modaicaud Police Station Crime No. 69/2012, under sections 454, 457, 380 IPC @ 457, 380 IPC, fourth case has been registered in Modaicaud Police Station Crime No. 70/2012, under sections 454, 457, 380 r/w. 511 IPC @ 457, 380, r/w. 511 IPC; fifth case has been registered in Modaicaud Police Station Crime No. 28/2013, under sections 394 IPC @ 394 r/w. 75 IPC; sixth case has been registered in Eraniel Police Station Crime No. 835/2013 under Sections 392 IPC; seventh case has been registered in Modaicaud Police Station Crime No. 4/2014, under sections 294(b) and 387 IPC and eighth case has been registered in Eraniel Police Station Crime No. 168/2014 under Sections 454 and 380 IPC. In adverse cases 1 to 4, detenu paid the fine amount and in the 5th adverse case, charge sheet has been filed and the detenu was released on condition bail. Adverse cases 6 to 8 are under investigation. Ground case has been registered in Eraniel Police Station Crime No. 170/2014, under Section 394, 506(ii) IPC, 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 filed by the Under Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise (XIV) Department, Chennai, it could be seen that the representation submitted on behalf of the detenu dated 13.06.2014 is received by the Government on 17.06.2014 and remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 18.06.2014 and remarks were received on 26.06.2014. In between 18.06.2014 and 26.06.2014, there were 5 clear working and 2 Government Holidays. File submitted on 27.06.2014. Deputy Secretary has dealt with the file on 27.06.2014, Minister has dealt with the file on 07.07.2014 and rejection letter was prepared on 08.07.2014. In between 27.06.2014 and 07.07.2014, there were 5 clear working and 4 Government Holidays. Thus, there is unexplained delay in considering the representation at two stages. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions on the aspect of delay.