RANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, namely, Bennet @ Nanuthooki, S/o. Palaiyan @ Parameswaran branded as 'Sand Offender' in detention order in P.D. No. 14/2014, dated 26.05.2014 by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, has sought for a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) THE Detenu has come to the adverse notice of the police in five cases, registered in Cr. Nos. 577/2008, 330/2010, 1012/2011, 350/2013 and 413/2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC; 353, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Sec. 4(1 -A) r/w Sec. 21(1) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1957 and Section 36(A) of Tamil nadu Mines and Minerals Concession Rule 1959; 294(b), 336, 323, 506(i) IPC; 294(b), 324 IPC and 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC respectively on the file of Kaliyakkavilai Police Station. The first four adverse cases are pending trial and the fifth adverse case is under investigation, when the order of detention was passed. The order of detention was passed on the basis of the ground case alleged to have registered on 05.05.2014 on the file of Kaliyakkavilai Police Station. On being satisfied that the Detenu is habitually indulging in activities, prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order, the Detaining Authority has clamped the Detention Order on the Detenu. At paragraph 6, the Detaining Authority has concluded as follows:

(3.) ON a perusal of the Proforma produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we find that the representation dated 03.06.2014 was received by the Government on 05.06.2014. The remarks were called for, by the Detaining Authority, on 06.06.2014 and the remarks were received by the Government on 18.06.2014. In between 06.06.2014 and 18.06.2014, there were 8 clear working days and 4 holidays. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the file on 20.06.2014 and the Minister for Electricity Prohibition and Excise dealt with on 09.07.2014. In between 20.06.2014 and 09.07.2014, there were 13 working days and 6 holidays. There is delay in considering the representation, during the relevant period at two stages, which has not been properly explained. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions on the aspect of delay.