Introduction
In this case, the petitioner is wife of detenu who has filed a Habeas Corpus Petition before the
Honourable High Court of Madras to quash the detention order dated 20.07.2021 which has been
Passed by the district collector and district magistrate under the Tamil Nadu act, 14 /1982 and set the
detenu at liberty.
The Honourable High Court of Madras has made observations regarding the detention order passed
by Judicial Magistrate and the matter has been adjudicated after which was reversed by the Supreme
Court By quashing a detention order after noting that authority considered the representation of
return after a long delay.
Facts of the case
The detenu was a history cheater apart from the two recent adverse cases the detenu has involved in
11 other cases since [Link] detenu Is a politician and was arrested in connection with the attempt
to murder case his followers has ransacked the police station and rescued him from the lock up.
In the detention order, the detaining authority being satisfied on the perusal of records that the
detenu is in the habit of indulging in criminal offence continuously and in the view that he's a rowdy
cheater, his activities are of nature are cheating fear, terror and feeling of insecurity in the minds of
people of that locality and if the detenu is allowed to remain at large he will indulge in similar
activities continuously causing insecurity in the minds of people and disturb the public Tranquillity.
Further, against the detenu There are three criminal cases remanded namely
Crime number 1473 Offences Sections 294 (b),341,506 (ii) and 109 of IPC and 1485 of 2020 Offenses
under section 294(b),353, 307 and 109 of IPC dated on 23.12.2020 and 31.12.2020 and Crime number
581 of 2021 offenses under section 147, 452, 294(b),186, 224, 225, 285,353 and 506dated on
14.07.2021.
The later case is the ground case, which has invited slapping off preventive detention.
. The representation of the detenu data 24072021 and 30 07 2021 indicates non furnishing of
translated version and difficulty in making proper representation without translated copyAnd it was
further said that non production of translated Tamil version of remanded order has not has caused
any prejudice to the detenu because as he was produced before the learned judicial magistrate and
was remanded to the judicial custody from time to time. As the content of the remand order and
Roman extension appears to have been explained by the learn judicial magistrate and a copy of
remand report has been received by the detenu and also has signed it. On the assessment of the
pleadings and records the detaining authority appears to have applied his mind on all the documents
and have passed the detention order, being satisfied that if the data new is left at large he may cause
disturbance to the public and peace tranquillity run therefore the court is of the view that there was
no prejudiced cost to the data new since he has been explained orally by the learn judicial magistrate
while remaining to the judicial custody and the copy of remand order has been served on the data
new after obtaining his acknowledgement so the heaviest copper was was dismissed by the High
Court of Madras.
Issues
Whether the representation dated 30 /07/ 2021 made by the detenu To the additional chief secretary
to the government, home, probation and exercise department has been considered with utmost
dispatch by the appropriate authority
Judgment
The court was in the view that although the detention order refer to the detail news questionable
activities that could have been for a good reason for detaining him by way of a preventive action but
the issue in the present case whether the representation made by the Dean you had been considered
with the utmost dispatch by the appropriate authority without any prejudice caused.
The Supreme Court by setting aside the impugned judgment allowing the uplands writ of quashing of
the stated detention order said in the present case it is admitted position that representation dated
372021 was received in the office of the concerned authority on 18/08/2021, the minister cleared the
file finally on 20/10/2021 even if, it may not be a case of lethargy of the competent authority to
consider the representation the time period of over two months spent in doing so Cannot be
countenanced. It does not require such a long time to examine the representation concerning
preventive detention of the detinue and further directions were also issued to set free forthwith in
case he was not required in connection with any criminal case pending against him.
