S. RUKUMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, Sankaranainar @ Icemurugan @ Sankaranarayanan, branded as a 'Goonda' in Detention Order M.H.S. Confdl No. 21/2014 dated 21.04.2014, by the 1st respondent/District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, has sought for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

(2.) THE Detenu has come to the adverse notice of the police in four cases. The first case has been registered against him in Ambasamudram Police Station Crime No. 116/2013, under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC; second case has been registered in Ambasamudram Police Station Crime No. 290/2013 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 302, 109 IPC, altered into Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 302, 109, 120(b) IPC; third case has been registered in Ambasamudram Police Station Crime No. 81/2014, under Sections 452, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of Tamilnadu Public Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992, altered into Sections 452, 294(b), 324, 506(ii), 120(b) IPC and Section 3 of Tamilnadu Public Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992 and the fourth case has been registered in Kadayam Police Station Crime No. 102/2014 under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 IPC. Ground case has been registered on the file of Ambasamudram Police Station Crime No. 97/2014 under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 IPC r/w 25(i)(A) Arms Act, 1959, 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 the Detention Order, on the Detenu. At paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has concluded as follows: -

(3.) THE Proforma submitted by the Under Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai, shows that the detenu has submitted a representation, dated 29.04.2014. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, seemed to have rejected the representation, on 01.05.2014. As the detenu was in confinement, as per the procedure, representation addressed to the competent authorities, is routed through the Superintendent of Prisons. Therefore, the Under Secretary has referred to the representation dated 29.04.2014, which should have been received by the Government, within few days, as was done, in the case of the District Collector, Tirunelveli District, who after receipt of the representation, is stated to have passed orders, on 01.05.2014. The delay between 29.04.2014 and 05.06.2014, as regards the receipt of representation, has not been properly explained. Further, from the Proforma, it could be deduced that remarks have been received by the Government, on 01.05.2014 and that file has been submitted, only on 16.06.2014. In between 01.05.2014 and 16.06.2014, there were 45 days, out of which, 14 days, are Government Holidays, and there were 31 clear working days. The delay, at two spells, stated supra, has not been explained, in the counter affidavit. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions on the aspect of delay.