Madras High Court
Jamunarani vs The Secretary To The Government on 22 April, 2022
Bench: P.N.Prakash, A.A.Nakkiran
H.C.P.No.1972 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.04.2022
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN
H.C.P.No.1972 of 2021
Jamunarani .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Vellore-2.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Kilpennathur Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.1972 of 2021
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with
the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated
29.10.2021 in D.O.No.96/2021-C2 against the petitioner's husband
Perumal, male, aged 46 years, S/o.Gopal, who is confined at the
Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
for Mr.S.N.Arunkumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Perumal, male, aged 46 years, S/o.Gopal. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.96/2021-C2 dated 29.10.2021, holding him to be a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1972 of 2021
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
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 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. Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1972 of 2021
5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 29.10.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 30.11.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 06.12.2021. The remarks were duly received on 14.12.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 03.01.2022.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 2 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 14.12.2021 and there was a delay of 7 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which, 2 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 5 days in considering the representation.
Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1972 of 2021
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.
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 6 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 5 days in considering the Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1972 of 2021 representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.96/2021-C2 dated 29.10.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Perumal, male, aged 46 years, S/o.Gopal, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(P.N.P.,J.) (A.A.N.,J.) 22.04.2022 Index: Yes/No nsd Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1972 of 2021 To
1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore-2.
5.The Inspector of Police, Kilpennathur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1972 of 2021 P.N.PRAKASH,J.
and A.A.NAKKIRAN,J.
nsd H.C.P.No.1972 of 2021 22.04.2022 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis