SARITHA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, by the friend of the detenu, namely, Joseph @ Joseph Sithar Singh, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records connected with the detention order of the second respondent, in Memo No.845/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 06.08.2016 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's friend, by name Joseph @ Joseph Sithar Singh, son of Lalsingh Durai, aged about 26 years, detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) Even though, Mr. A.Nirmal Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, raised many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he confined his arguments only to the ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation of the detenu has been received by the Government on 29.08.2016 and remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on 29.08.2016. However, the remarks have been received by the Government only on 01.09.2016, after a delay of 3 days. He adds that the file was dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 01.09.2016 and the Minister concerned dealt with the same on 13.10.2016 with a further delay of 41 days. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 17 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 24 days, which remains unexplained. The unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenu vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.

(3.) Resisting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.M.R.Rajentran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had further submitted that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of the representation of the detenu. It is contended that such a delay is not fatal to the impugned detention order, as the authorities concerned are dealing with the file right from the date of receipt of the representation and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.