Feb 4: The Madras High Court has set aside an order of Tirunelveli Police Commissioner detaining a person under the Goondas Act and ordered his immediate release.A Division Bench comprising Justice V R Sirpurkar and Justice A Raman, which quashed the detention order, rapped the authorities for the inordinate delay on their part in considering the representation given by the detenu.
For his alleged involvement in a group clash, in which three persons were killed in Melapallam on Aug. 11, 1997, the Tirunelveli Police Commissioner passed an order detaining Ibrahim under the Goondas Act on August 31.
Challenging the detention order, Ibrahim's wife Ismayee Beevi, preferred the present Habeas Corpus petition seeking the release of her husband.
She submitted that her husband was not supplied with the necessary documents and hence, he could not make proper representation to the government. However, he sent a representation on Sept. 11, 1997, but the same was not considered till Oct. 24. There was noexplanation for the delay. The detention has thus become illegal, she contended.
The Bench observed that it is true that the representation dated Sept. 11 sent by the petitioner was addressed to the Chief Secretary. But that would not absolve the government from considering the same expeditiously. Merely because the detenu was directed to send the representation to the Prohibition and Excise department secretary, the authority concerned should not take advantage on that count and try to justify his stand for not having considered the same. The Chief Secretary is very much a part of the government and any representation addressed to him would tantamount to sending the representation to the government.
The Bench pointed out that the representation sent on Sept. 11 remained in the office of the Chief Secretary for 10 days. There was no explanation for the delay. Thereafter, no remarks were called for from the detaining and sponsoring authorities. It is available on record that the sponsoring authority didnot bother to send his remarks for over 10 days.
The Public Prosecutor (PP) tried to convince the court by stating that because of the communal tension prevailing in the area in which the sponsoring authority was working, he did not have time to look into the matter and forward his remarks to the detaining authority. This explanation could not be accepted, as it is in the nature of a lame excuse.
Communal tension cannot have the effect of preventing the activities of a government servant. There is absolutely no justification for the sponsoring authority for keeping the whole matter pending for over 10 days.
Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
