Madras High Court
Balaji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 November, 2018
Author: C.T.Selvam
Bench: C.T.Selvam, S.Ramathilagam
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM
H.C.P.No.1973 of 2018
Balaji
... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, relating to my friend's
detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated
14.08.2018 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings
No.713/BCDFGISSSV/2018, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct
the respondents herein to produce my friend namely Seenivasan @ Seenu, son
of Padmanabaiya, aged 26 years before this Hon'ble Court and set my friend at
liberty from detention, now my friend detained at Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.] The petitioner is the friend of the detenu herein, viz. Seenivasan @ Seenu, Son of Padmanabaiya, aged 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.713/BCDFGISSSV/2018, dated 14.08.2018, holding him to be a "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. The detenu has come to adverse notice in the following cases:-
S.No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law
1. T-7 Tank Factory Police Station 457 and 511 IPC Crime No.1893/2017
2. T-7 Tank Factory Police Station 454 and 380 IPC Crime No.90/2018
3. T-10 Thirumullaivoyal Police Station 454 and 380 IPC Crime No.137/2018
4. T-6 Avadi Police Station 457 and 380 IPC Crime No.185/2018
5. T-10 Thirumullaivoyal Police Station 457 and 380 IPC Crime No.388/2018
6. T-7 Tank Factory Police Station 454 and 380 IPC Crime No.275/2018
7. T-6 Avadi Police Station 457 and 380 IPC Crime No.378/2018 http://www.judis.nic.in 3 S.No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law
8. T-6 Avadi Police Station 457 and 511 IPC Crime No.379/2018 9. T-6 Avadi Police Station 454 and 380 IPC Crime No.461/2018 The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Cr.No.488/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, T-6 Avadi Police Station for offences u/s 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506 (ii) IPC. The detention order has been passed by second respondent in No.713/BCDFGISSSV/2018.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
4. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition. He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be http://www.judis.nic.inquashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice 4 has been caused to the detenu and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
6. The Detention Order in question was passed on 14.08.2018. The petitioner made a representation, dated 03.09.2018 and the same was received on 04.09.2018. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on the same day. The remarks were duly received on 07.09.2018. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 03.10.2018.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an inordinate delay of 3 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. Thereafter, there was yet another delay of 24 days in considering the representation, of which 11 days were Saturdays, Sundays and Government holidays and hence there was a delay of 13 days in considering representation.
8. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 (5) SCC 244, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the procedural safeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the Courts of law and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities undertaken by the detenu.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
9. In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government, reported in 2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the unexplained delay of three days in disposal of the representation made on behalf of the detenu would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention.
10. In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the very detention illegal.
11. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 3 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 13 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
12. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.713/BCDFGISSSv/2018, dated 14.08.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely Seenivasan @ Seenu, Son of Padmanabaiya, aged 26 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[C.T.S., J .] [S.R.T., J.]
13.11.2018
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
kkn
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
C.T.SELVAM, J
and
S.RAMATHILAGAM, J
kkn
To:
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai-66.
4.The Joint Secretary,
Public (Law and order) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1973 of 2018
13.11.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in