MUNIYAMMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition to quash the order of detention passed against her son Durai @ Duraipandi branding him as a "Goonda" vide proceedings in Cr. M.P.(MD)No.11 of 2016 dated 21.09.2016.

(3.) The detenu has come to adverse notice of the respondents in three cases. The point for consideration in the instant case is whether the Detaining Authority was entitled to deal with the representation of the detenu, after he had forwarded all the papers for approval on 26.09.2016 and approval was granted by the Government in G.O.Rt. No.4748 dated 02.10.2016. The said issue is no longer res integra and was settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Ravindran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 1 LW Crl.99 . In the said case, the detenu was branded as a Goonda and an order of detention dated 04.04.2008 was passed. A representation was sent to the Detaining Authority on 12.04.2008 and the same was rejected on 24.04.2008 and in the meantime, the file was forwarded to the Government and the order of detention was approved by the Government on 15.04.2008. The contention of the petitioner therein was that when the entire file was despatched to the Government, if any representation is received by the Detaining Authority, he should forward the said representation to the Government for necessary action. But the Detaining Authority himself considered the representation on 24.04.2008 ie., after the approval of the detention by the Government on 15.04.2008, which has prejudiced the detenu and taken away the valuable right guaranteed under the Constitution of India.