@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A. Selvam, J.@mdashThis Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating
to detention order passed in Detention Order No. 19/2014, dated 18.07.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as first
respondent herein against the detenu by name G.Mani @ Estate Mani, Son of Ganapathy and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty
forthwith.
2. The Inspector of Police, Ammaiyanaickanur Police Station as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein
it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:
(i) Crime No. 173 of 2013, Erode Town Police Station registered under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code @ Sections
120(b), 324, 307 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Crime No. 171 of 2014, Sempatty Police Station registered under Sections 395 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 16.06.2014, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Highway Patrol-III, Ammaiyanaickanur Police Station
has lodged a complaint against the detenu and others and the same has been registered in Crime No. 102 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 341
and 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and ultimately requested the detaining
authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
4. The detaining authority viz., first respondent herein after perusing the averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connected documents
has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately branded him as ''Goonda'' by way of passing the
impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu as
petitioner.
5. On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended inter alia to the effect that all the averments
made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the detenu a representation has been submitted and the same
has not been considered without delay and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representation submitted on the side of the detenu has been duly considered
and disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question is not liable to be quashed.
8. On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that in between Column Nos. 7 and 9, six
clear working days are available and in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, ten clear working days are available and no explanation has been given
on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay and that itself would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
9. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order dated 18.07.2014 passed in Detention Order No. 19/2014 by the first
respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., G.Mani @ Estate Mani, Son of
Ganapathy at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.