Madras High Court
R.Meena vs The Principal Secretary on 1 June, 2021
Bench: M.M.Sundresh, R.N.Manjula
H.C.P.No.1446 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.06.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
and
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice R.N.MANJULA
H.C.P. No.1446 of 2020
R.Meena .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Principal Secretary
to the Government to Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St., George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Namakal District,
Namakal.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Namakal District,
Namakal.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Namakal, Namakal District. ..Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in
C.M.P.No.12/Sexual Offender/2020/M1 on the file of the second
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.No.1446 of 2020
respondent, set aside the detention order dated 26.06.2020 and direct
the second respondent to produce the detenu Ramadass son of
Karuppannan, aged about 55 years, presently detained at the Central
Prison, Salem under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a SEXUAL
OFFENDER, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.AR.M.Arunachalam
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) The petitioner is the wife of Ramadass, S/o.Karuppannan, male, aged 55 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.M.P.No.12/Sexual Offender/2020/M1 dated 26.06.2020, holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.No.1446 of 2020
3. 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.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 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 quashed. According to the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), no prejudice 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.
5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 26.06.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 01.08.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 10.08.2020. The remarks were duly received on Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.No.1446 of 2020 03.09.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 07.09.2020.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 24 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 7 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 17 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 03.09.2020 and there was delay of 4 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 2 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 2 days in considering the representation.
7. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (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. Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.No.1446 of 2020
8. In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government (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.
9. 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.
10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 17 days in submitting the remarks and 2 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.M.P.No.12/Sexual Offender/2020/M1 dated 26.06.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.No.1446 of 2020 detenu, namely, Ramadass, S/o.Karuppannan, male, aged 55 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(M.M.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
Index:Yes/No 01.06.2021
mmi/ssm
To
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government to Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St., George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakal District,Namakal.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Namakal District, Namakal.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Namakal, Namakal District.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.No.1446 of 2020 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and R.N.MANJULA, J.
mmi H.C.P. No.1446 of 2020 01.06.2021 Page 7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/