Full order THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI H.C.P.(MD) No.131 of 2021 Machakalai … Petitioner. #### . Every detention order passed by the Detaining Authority has to be approved by the Government as per Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Government is approving the order of detention based on the materials placed before it. Therefore, the basic materials for any detention order would be available with the Government. If at all any clarification is required from the authorities concerned on the representation submitted by the detenu, then it could be collected in no time through e-mail or fax from such authorities. Even then, there is an inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenus and in fact, in some of the cases, this delay is artificially created to favour the detenu. With the advancement in technology and in today’s scientific world, several modes of communication are available, such as e-mail, fax, WhatsApp., etc, which can be best used. A dedicated web-portal has to be established so that every movement of the representation can be monitored and the delay in considering the representation can be avoided. We hope and trust that the authorities concerned would take necessary action in this regard. 31. With the above observations, this habeas corpus petition is disposed of. The impugned detention order passed by the second respondent dated 15.12.2020, is hereby quashed. The detenu, namely, Raguvaran @ Anbu, aged about 32 years, S/o.Machakalai, who is now confined at Central Prison, Madurai, is directed to be set at liberty, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case / proceedings. 32. Since this Court has made certain observations for the authorities to take note of, Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the following officials for taking necessary action at their end: i) the Chief Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai; ii) the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai; iii) the Director General of Police (L & O), Chennai; and iv) the Director of Prosecution, Chennai. [M.K.K.S.,J.] [B.P.,J.] 05.07.2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 05.07.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

H.C.P.(MD) No.131 of 2021

Machakalai … Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Madurai District,
Madurai – 625 020.

3.The Inspector of Police,
Sindhupatti Police Station,
Madurai District.

4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai – 625 016.

5.Thiru K.Rajasekaran, (wrongly shown as Rameshkumar)
Special Public Prosecutor
for NDPS Act Cases,
Madurai. … Respondents

[R.5 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 17.06.2021]

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned detention order passed in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.35/2020 dated 15.12.2020 passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenu, namely, Raguvaran @ Anbu, aged about 32 years, S/o.Machakalai, now confined at Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and thereafter, set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
for Mr.B.Anandan

For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Standing Counsel for the State
for R.1 to R.4

Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
for R.5
*****

O R D E R

B.PUGALENDHI, J.,
The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the detention order dated 15.12.2020, in and by which, the petitioner’s son, Raguvaran @ Anbu, was detained as a Drug Offender under Act 14 of 1982.

2. The detenu came to the adverse notice in the case in Sindhupatti Police Station Crime No.933 of 2020, registered for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 & 29(i) of NDPS Act. The said case was registered as against the detenu and one Sasikumar, who were found in possession of 30 kgs of Ganja, each, in total 60 kgs of Ganja. The detenu was arrested on 25.09.2020 and was remanded to judicial custody. He has filed a bail petition before the Special District and Sessions (EC & NDPS Act cases) Court, Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.1060 of 2020, which is said to be pending. By placing reliance upon a similar case in Elumalai Police Station Crime No.112 of 2018, wherein, bail was granted by the concerned Court to the accused therein, the detaining authority has derived the subjective satisfaction that there is a real and imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and to indulge in similar activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health, has clamped the order of detention by branding him as a drug offender.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated and there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

4. Tamil Nadu is the State, where large number of detentions are invoked every year. The object of detention and the detention laws, is not to punish, but, to prevent the commission of offences. If the detaining authority is satisfied that with a view to prevent such person from indulging in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, in future, then an order of detention can be passed. It is for the detaining authority to consider, on the basis of antecedents and arrive at a conclusion, whether the detenu, had come to adverse notice, whether he would continue to indulge in prejudicial activities, if he remains at large. It is also obligatory on the part of the detaining authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction based on the materials placed before him, as to whether recourse to normal criminal law did not have the desired effect of preventing him from indulging in such activities (emphasis supplied), which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future.

5. As stated supra, the detaining authority, in this case, by referring to a similar case registered in Elumalai Police Station Crime No.112 of 2018, under the NDPS Act, wherein bail was granted to the accused therein by the concerned Court, inferred that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and therefore, has detained him by invoking Act 14 of 1982.

6. The detenu and the another accused were arrested on 25.09.2020, in connection with the case in Crime No.933 of 2020, wherein, they were found to be in possession of 60 kgs of Ganja. As per the notification of the Central Government in SO.No.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001, commercial quantity of Ganja is 20 kgs. Therefore, an accused, who is found in possession of 20 kgs or more of Ganja, are said to be in possession of commercial quantity of the contraband.

7. The law framers viewed the possession of commercial quantity of contraband very seriously and therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act has been introduced. As per the said Section, regular bail is denied to an accused, who are found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail alone, will entitle him to a bail.
For ready reference, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is extracted as under:
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless –
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail.”
However, this will not be applicable to the case of grant of statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., as per which, if the final report is not filed within the stipulated period, the accused is entitled for default bail.

8. The law framers have thought of this aspect also and have introduced Section 36A of the NDPS Act. As per Section 36A(4) of the Act, the time limit for filing the final report in respect of cases involving commercial quantities of contraband is extended from 90 days to 180 days. A proviso to Section 36A(4) of the Act has also been introduced, as per which, if the final report could not be filed even within the 180 days period, then, on an application filed by the Public Prosecutor, the concerned Court can grant extension of time upto one year for filing the final report.

For better appreciation, the said provisions are extracted as under:
“36A. Offences triable by Special Courts:
(4) In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 thereof to “ninety days”, where they occur, shall be construed as reference to “one hundred and eighty days”:

Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days.”

9. To put it in simple terms,
– Section 37 of the NDPS Act prohibits grant of bail to an accused, who is involved in commercial quantity of contraband, unless there are reasonable grounds to grant bail;
– Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., enables the accused to come out on statutory bail, if the final report is not filed within the stipulated time limit;
– Section 36(A)4 of the NDPS Act extends the time limit for filing report from 90 days to 180 days, in respect of cases involving commercial quantity of contraband; and
– Proviso to Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act enables the prosecution to get a further extension of one year to file the final report.
Therefore, the statute prohibits the grant of both regular bail as well as statutory bail to an accused, who is involved in commercial quantity of contraband.

10. When such is the position, it is not possible for the detenu, who is branded as a drug offender based on a solitary case of commercial quantity, to come out on bail and indulge in similar such activities. When the recourse to normal criminal law is having the desired effect of effectively preventing the detenu from indulging in activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health, there is no necessity for detaining him under Act 14 of 1982 and therefore, this Court has directed the learned Standing Counsel to get instructions from the detaining and sponsoring authorities in this regard.

11. Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that the detenu was released on statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., on 26.03.2021, since the final report was not filed within the stipulated time limit of 180 days. He further submitted that no extension application as per the proviso to Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act was filed and both the accused in Crime No.933 of 2020 were allowed to come out on statutory bail.

12. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.(MD)No.19480 of 2020, in B.Pandiarajan v. Secretary to Government and Others, [wherein Myself, Justice B.PUGALENDHI] was a party to the judgment, has already taken cognizance of similar such incidents in the Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, wherein, due to non-filing of final reports in as many as 43 cases, the accused therein merrily walked away from the jail and by order dated 22.12.2020, restrained the concerned Special Public Prosecutor for NDPS Act cases to act as a Special Public Prosecutor until further orders. It appears that the then Special Public Prosecutor was removed pursuant to that order and the present incumbent officer has been given additional charge from 26.12.2020. Even thereafter, the detenu in this case, who was found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, was released on statutory bail by the Special Court on 26.03.2021, because of the non-filing of the final report.

13. Taking serious note on the issue, this Court, by order dated 17.06.2021, has suo-motu impleaded the Special Public Prosecutor for NDPS Act cases, Madurai as fifth respondent in this case. This Court further directed the Sponsoring Authority / third respondent – Inspector of Police and the Special Public Prosecutor / fifth respondent to file their respective affidavits as to why they have not taken any steps to file an extension application under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.

14. The Inspector of Police, Sindhupatti Police Station, Madurai / third respondent, who is the investigation officer in Crime No.933 of 2020 filed an affidavit stating that the investigation in Crime No.933 of 2020 was completed and final report was made ready as early as on 23.10.2020. The case diary and final report were placed before the Special Public Prosecutor for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, for vetting. The Special Public Prosecutor, who received the papers, has not vetted the same and in the meantime, he was removed from the post and the fifth respondent has been posted on additional charge as the Special Public Prosecutor for NDPS Act cases from December, 2020.

15. The Inspector of Police further claims that she sent reminders to the fifth respondent through a Woman Constable, Tmt.Ramuthai, who is also attending the Court work in District Court, Madurai. The fifth respondent informed her that he is in-charge of two Courts and burdened with heavy works and as and when, he is free, he will go through the final report and approve it. In the meantime, both the accused in Crime No.933 of 2020 have applied for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., before the Principal Sessions Court, NDPS Act cases, Madurai in Cr.M.P.Nos.856 & 857 of 2021 on 25.03.2021, wherein, notice was issued to the Public Prosecutor and the Police and the case was adjourned to 26.03.2021. The third respondent has taken a specific stand that without giving any intimation to the police, the Special Public Prosecutor has made an endorsement in the bail petition that the investigation has been completed, final report also prepared by the police, but purposely not filed by the police. The Court has also passed an order on the bail applications and enlarged the petitioners on statutory bail by order dated 26.03.2021.

16. Mr.K.Rajasekaran, the Special Public Prosecutor for the Special Court NDPS Act cases, Madurai / fifth respondent has also filed an affidavit stating that by the proceedings dated 26.12.2020, of the District Collector, Madurai / second respondent, he was given additional charge as Special Public Prosecutor (Bail) to the Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai. On the bail applications filed by the accused in Crime No.933 of 2020 under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., he made the following endorsement:
“In this above case chemical analysis report also received. Final report also prepared by the complainant police. But purposely not filed the charge sheet. Prosecution kindly prays the Honourable court may take necessary action against the complainant / respondent police.”

17. He further claimed that the final report in Crime No.933 of 2020 has been handed over to him only on 23.06.2021 for approval and he verified the same and requested the police to file it immediately. He denied that the final report has already been handed over to the then Special Public Prosecutor or any reminders have been given to him on the same. When the bail applications came up for hearing, he came to know that the final report has already been prepared, but it was purposely not filed. Therefore, he has also made an endorsement in the bail applications as stated above.

18. From the affidavits of the respondents 3 & 5, one thing is clear that the investigation in Crime No.933 of 2020 was completed as early as on 23.10.2020. The Inspector of Police claims that the final report was handed over to the Special Public Prosecutor for vetting, however, the Special Public Prosecutor denied the same. But the Special Public Prosecutor has made a strong comment on the investigation agency in the bail applications filed by the accused in Cr.M.P.Nos.856 & 857 of 2021. The said applications under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., were filed only on 25.03.2021, by which time, the final report, according to the police, was made ready. Even then, the accused, who were found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, were enlarged on statutory bail.

19. Though the Inspector of Police claims that the final report was sent for vetting as early as on 23.10.2020 to the Special Public Prosecutor and subsequently, it was also reminded through one Constable, there was no document to substantiate the same. On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor has made strong comment on the investigation agency in the bail applications, but, the follow-up action taken by him for filing the final report in a commercial quantity NDPS case is not known. We cannot conduct a roving enquiry on this episode. The Inspector of Police and the Special Public Prosecutor are passing the buck from one to another. None of them is taking the responsibility. Because of the lack of responsibility and accountability on the part of both the investigation and prosecution agency, an accused, who was found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, was enlarged on statutory bail, despite the investigation was completed and final report was prepared within the stipulated time limit.

20. Keeping these aspects in mind, the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.65, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (AR-I) Department, dated 09.03.2007, constituted an Administrative Reforms Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr.Justice A.K.Rajan, Retired Judge of this Court, to ensure corruption free and transparent administration. The Committee has also submitted its first report as early as on 25.04.2008 and the Government, after examining the recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Committee, has taken a policy decision to accept certain recommendations and has also passed a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.24, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (AR-I) Department, dated 17.02.2010, in this regard. One such recommendation accepted by the Government is as follows:
Recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Committee Decision of the Government
Accountability shall be fixed on every Government Servant, at every stage and at every level. This recommendation is accepted.

All Departments of Secretariat are requested to issue necessary orders to this effect while issuing orders on delegation.
Even though the Government has passed a Government Order, as early as in the year 2010, directing the Heads of Department to issue necessary orders fixing accountability on every Government Servant, in the present case on hand, an accused, who was found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, was enlarged on statutory bail, despite the statute prohibits for grant of bail in such cases. This Court hopes and trusts that the authorities concerned will take necessary action to fix accountability and responsibility on every Government Servant, so as to avoid such things at least in future.

21. As per Rule 25(2) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, the officer-in-charge of the police station is to file the final report of any investigation under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., before the Court concerned, along with copies of such report, meaning thereby, there is no necessity for the investigating officer to obtain any prior opinion or approval from the Public Prosecutor before filing the final report. As per Rule 25(1), final report filed by the investigation agency should normally be received by the Court concerned on all working days at fixed hours. In cases where the accused, who is in detention, would become entitled to be released on compulsory bail under proviso to section 167 Cr.P.C., the Court concerned shall receive the final report even on a holiday or beyond the working hours of the Court. Even though the statute provides all sorts of mechanism for the investigation agency to file the final report within stipulated time limit, they are not filed within such period, stating that the final reports are sent for vetting.

22. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in R.Sarala v. T.S.Velu and Others, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 459, has held that there is no stage during which the investigating officer is legally obliged to take the opinion of a Public Prosecutor or any authority, except the superior police officer. The Court further held that it is not in the scheme of the Code for supporting or sponsoring any combined operation between the investigating officer and the Public Prosecutor for filing the report in the court. For better understanding, the relevant observations are extracted as under:
“10. …
Section 173(1) casts an obligation for completing the investigation without unnecessary delay and sub-section (2) enjoins on the officer in charge of the police station to forward to the Magistrate a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, on completion of such investigation. The aforesaid power of the officer in charge of the police station is subjected only to the supervision of superior police officers in rank as envisaged in Section 36 of the Code. There is no stage during which the investigating officer is legally obliged to take the opinion of a Public Prosecutor or any authority, except the aforesaid superior police officer in rank.
… … …
12. A Public Prosecutor is appointed, as indicated in Section 24 of the Code, for conducting any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings in the court. He has also the power to withdraw any case from the prosecution with the consent of the court. He is the officer of the court. Thus the Public Prosecutor is to deal with a different field in the administration of justice and he is not involved in investigation. It is not in the scheme of the Code for supporting or sponsoring any combined operation between the investigating officer and the Public Prosecutor for filing the report in the court.
… … …
19. The High Court has committed an illegality in directing the final report to be taken back and to file a fresh report incorporating the opinion of the Public Prosecutor. Such an order cannot stand legal scrutiny and hence we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order.”

23. Neither the Code nor the Criminal Rules of Practice warrants the police to file the final report only after getting the opinion of the Public Prosecutor. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid decision, has categorically explained this position. Even then, such practice is in the field, on the premise that if there is no professional vetting, the final reports may be filed in an incomplete shape and may suffer from some basic defects. No doubt, the investigating officer, on his own volition or on his own initiative, can discuss with the Public Prosecutor or any person of legal knowledge, for the purpose of forming his opinion as to the report to be laid in the court. But, by saying so, they should not create mechanical delays, thereby, allowing the prosecution to fail. In this regard, a learned Single Judge of this Court, in Crl.OP(MD)No.18396 of 2019, has observed as follows:
“5.In these cases, the final report must be vetted expeditiously and there cannot be any unnecessary delay. The Director of Prosecution is mandated to keep a watch. The Additional Public Prosecutor can take a maximum of seven days to vet the final report. It is well known that Cr.P.C., does not contemplate obtaining any prior opinion or approval from the Additional Public Prosecutor before filing the final report. But then, practical considerations will have to be taken note of. If there is no professional vetting, the final report may be filed in an incomplete shape and may suffer from some basic defects. Only to avoid the same, the process of vetting by the Additional Public Prosecutor is adopted. But this process cannot be used as a tool by the law officer concerned to vex the investigation officer. The Director of Prosecution is called upon to ensure that there is no needless delay at the end of the Additional Public Prosecutor in these cases.
6.I am constrained to make this observation because I have come across quite a few cases involving serious offences where on account of delay by the Additional Public prosecutors the accused were able to come out on statutory bail. If the final report is not filed in time, the accused is entitled to default bail and courts have no option but to grant it.”

24. If at all the investigation agency feels that professional vetting is required, instead of relying upon the Public Prosecutors alone, who are already burdened with heavy work, they can even approach the hierarchy of Officers available in the Directorate of Prosecution. Be it the Public Prosecutors or the Officers of the Directorate of Prosecution, they should be instructed to take maximum of seven days to vet the final reports. There should be a mechanism of giving acknowledgments for the receipt of final reports for vetting, reminders in writing, if any, etc. The Director of Prosecution, Chennai, is hereby called upon to issue necessary directions / instructions in this regard.

25. Now, coming to the merits of the present habeas corpus petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner and on this ground alone, he sought for quashing the impugned order of detention. The detention order was passed on 15.12.2020. From the proforma submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the State, it appears that the detenu made a representation on 22.01.2021 and it was received on 25.01.2021. On the same day, remarks were called for and the same was received on 04.03.2021. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 04.03.2021. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 12.04.2021 and thereafter, the detenu’s representation was rejected. It is seen that there was a delay of 37 days between 25.01.2021 and 04.03.2021. It is also seen that there are 12 Government holidays and after excluding the same, there is a delay of 25 days in considering the representation of the detenu.

26. In the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another (1999 (1) SCC 417) the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held that it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposal of the representation and if any delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner.

27. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay of 25 days in considering the representation of the detenu. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court referred supra, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.

28. When such type of technical grounds are raised, the Courts are left with no other option, except to grant the relief sought for, be it this Court or the Special Court, which granted statutory bail to the accused in Cr.M.P.Nos.856 & 857 of 2021. Time and again, this Court has reminded the authorities that though very many detention orders are passed in the State, most of them fail to stand before the judicial scrutiny because of the delay in considering the representation of the detenu. Even the proformas submitted by the State did not spell out the reasons for the delay in considering the representations. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court, in S.Rabiya Vs State of Tamil Nadu and two others [H.C.P(MD)No.73 of 2019, dated 10.07.2019] [wherein, Myself, Justice B.Pugalenghi, was a party to the judgment] issued certain directions to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, which reads as follows:
“9. In the above circumstances, this Court directs the Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, to submit an affidavit as to the reasons for the enormous delay in dealing with post-dated representations submitted on behalf of the detenu and also the measures to be taken to avoid such a kind of delay in dealing with disposal of post-dated representation. …”.
Despite passing of very many orders and pulling up the authorities, it appears that the delays in considering the representations are purposely made so as to get the detention orders quashed by the Court, on technical grounds.

29. The representation of the detenu received by the Government is forwarded to the Collectorate / Detaining Authority for their remarks and the District Collector, in turn, calls for remark from the Sponsoring Authority and the remarks are forwarded to the Government and the same is dealt with by the Deputy Secretary and then by the Hon’ble Minister of the Department concerned. Thereafter, reply for such representation is sent to the concerned detenu. In this process, the delay occurs, giving chance to the detenu to get out of the detention order.

30. Every detention order passed by the Detaining Authority has to be approved by the Government as per Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Government is approving the order of detention based on the materials placed before it. Therefore, the basic materials for any detention order would be available with the Government. If at all any clarification is required from the authorities concerned on the representation submitted by the detenu, then it could be collected in no time through e-mail or fax from such authorities. Even then, there is an inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenus and in fact, in some of the cases, this delay is artificially created to favour the detenu. With the advancement in technology and in today’s scientific world, several modes of communication are available, such as e-mail, fax, WhatsApp., etc, which can be best used. A dedicated web-portal has to be established so that every movement of the representation can be monitored and the delay in considering the representation can be avoided. We hope and trust that the authorities concerned would take necessary action in this regard.

31. With the above observations, this habeas corpus petition is disposed of. The impugned detention order passed by the second respondent dated 15.12.2020, is hereby quashed. The detenu, namely, Raguvaran @ Anbu, aged about 32 years, S/o.Machakalai, who is now confined at Central Prison, Madurai, is directed to be set at liberty, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case / proceedings.

32. Since this Court has made certain observations for the authorities to take note of, Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the following officials for taking necessary action at their end:
i) the Chief Secretary to the Government,
State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai;

ii) the Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai;

iii) the Director General of Police (L & O),
Chennai; and

iv) the Director of Prosecution,
Chennai.

[M.K.K.S.,J.] [B.P.,J.] 05.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
gk

To

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o.the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.

3.The Superintendent,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
B.PUGALENDHI, J.

gk

H.C.P.(MD) No.131 of 2021

You may also like...