Madras High Court
S.Senthilkumar vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 1 November, 2021
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan, R.Pongiappan
H.C.P.(MD) No.1081 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
H.C.P.(MD) No. 1081 of 2021
S.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner/ Brother of the Detenu
vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Trichirappalli City,
Trichy.
3. The Inspector of Police,
K.K.Nagar Police Station,
Trichirappalli City,
Trichirappalli.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.1081 of 2021
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Paster School cum District Prison,
Pudukottai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records
relating to the Detention order passed by the second respondent in
Detention order dated 07.07.2021 in Detention order in C.No.
19/detention/C.P.O/T.C/2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents
to produce the person or body of the detenu namely Samiravi alias
Ravikumar, S/o.Sivasami, aged about 45 years before this Court and set him
at liberty, now detained at Paster School Cum District Prison, Pudukkottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mathiyalagan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V.BHARATHIDASAN,J.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu, namely, Samiravi alias Ravikumar, S/o.Sivasami, aged about 45 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.(MD) No.1081 of 2021 years, against the detention order passed by the second respondent, in C.No. 19/detention/C.P.O/T.C/2021, dated 07.07.2021, branding him as 'Goonda' as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982.
2. Even though the petitioner has raised several grounds to quash the impugned detention order, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly place arguments on the ground of delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have not been followed in this case and there is unexplained and inordinate delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation, which would vitiate the impugned order of detention. He would further submit that the father of the detenu is in serious condition and nobody else to look after him.
3. Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.(MD) No.1081 of 2021 passed the detention order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order. It is also stated that even if there is any delay in disposal of the representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5. In the instant case, the proforma furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would indicate that as against the impugned detention order, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 29.07.2021 and it was received on 03.08.2021. Remarks were called for on the same day ie., on 03.08.2021 and it was received on 04.08.2021. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 04.08.2021. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 23.08.2021 and the representation came to be rejected on 23.08.2021. It is seen that in between 04.08.2021 and 23.08.2021, there was a delay of 12 days, after excluding the Government Holidays of 6 days, in considering the petitioner's representation. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.(MD) No.1081 of 2021
6. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in 1999 (1) SCC 417, wherein the Apex Court has 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 nay indifference or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner.
7. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the delay of 12 days in considering the representation of the petitioner has not been properly explained by the respondents. Hence, in our considered view, the detention order is liable to be set aside solely on the ground of delay by following the decision of the Honourable Apex Court referred supra.
8. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order made in C.No.19/detention/C.P.O./T.C/2021, dated 07.07.2021, passed by 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.(MD) No.1081 of 2021 the second respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Samiravi alias Ravikumar, S/o.Sivasami, aged about 45 years, who is now detained at Paster School Cum District Prison, Pudukottai, is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.
[V.B.D.,J.] [R.P.A,J.]
01.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi/akv
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.(MD) No.1081 of 2021
2. The Commissioner of Police, Trichirappalli City, Trichy.
3. The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichirappalli City, Trichirappalli.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Paster School Cum District Prison, Pudukkottai.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.(MD) No.1081 of 2021 V.BHARATHIDASAN,J.
and R.PONGIAPPAN,J.
akv ORDER MADE IN H.C.P.(MD) No.1081 of 2021 01.11.2021 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/