Madras High Court
Angammal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 March, 2022
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
H.C.P.(MD) No.1156 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.1156 of 2021
Angammal ... Petitioner/mother of the
Detenue
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, reb by its
Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate / District Collector,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Madurai. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the
detention order passed by the 2nd respondent made in S.R.No.
60/Goonda/2021 dated 30.07.2021 and quash the same and direct the
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.1156 of 2021
respondents to produce the detenu Nagu @ Nagendran, son of
Lakshamanan, Male aged 26, who is detained at Central Prison, Madurai,
before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, namely, Nagu @ Nagendran, S/o.Lakshamanan, aged about 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his proceedings in S.R.No. 60/Goonda/2021 dated 30.07.2021 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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 for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1156 of 2021
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 representations made by the petitioner were not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay with regard to the same.
4. 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 quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, 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 learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detention order against the co-accused has been quashed in H.C.P(MD)No. 1402 of 2021 on 16.02.2022.
3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1156 of 2021
6. The Detention Order in question was passed on 30.07.2021. The petitioner made a representation dated 05.08.2021 and the same was received on 09.08.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 10.08.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 20.10.2021. Though the representation dated 05.08.2021 was received on 09.08.2021, it was rejected only on 20.10.2021 with the delay of 33 days, after excluding the Government Holidays of 21 days. The delay in considering the representation remains unexplained.
7. 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.
8. 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. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1156 of 2021
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 unexplained delay of 33 days in considering the representation. 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 S.R.No.60/Goonda/2021 dated 30.07.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Nagu @ Nagendiran, S/o.Lakshamanan, aged about 26 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(R.S.M., J.) (N.S.K., J.)
09.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Ns
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.1156 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Ns
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate / District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
H.C.P.(MD)No.1156 of 2021
09.03.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis