Madras High Court
Menaka vs The Secretary To Government on 13 September, 2022
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
H.C.P.No.486 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 13.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
H.C.P.No.486 of 2022
Menaka .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai
3.The Superintendent of Police
Tiruvannamalai District
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore
5.The Inspector of Police
Tiruvannamalai PEW Police Station
Tiruvannamalai District .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records in
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.486 of 2022
connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated
16.03.2022 in D.O.No.21/2022-C2 against the petitioner's husband viz.
Prabakaran, aged 37 years, S/o.Duraisami, who is confined at 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.D.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Prabakaran, aged 37 years, S/o.Duraisami. The detenu has been detained by the 2nd respondent by his order dated 16.03.2022 in D.O.No.21/2022-C2, 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.
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 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.486 of 2022 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.
5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 16.03.2022. The petitioner made a representation on 18.04.2022. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 19.04.2022. The remarks were duly received on 29.04.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 01.08.2022.
3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.486 of 2022
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 29.04.2022 and there was a delay of 94 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister, after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 29 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 65 days in considering the representation.
7. In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble 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. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.486 of 2022
9. In Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in [1980 (2) SCC 321], the Hon'ble 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 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 65 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister. 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.21/2022-C2, dated 16.03.2022, passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Prabakaran, aged 37 years, S/o.Duraisami, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[P.N.P., J.] [T.K.R., J.]
13.09.2022
gya
Issue order copy by 14.09.2022
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.486 of 2022
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
AND
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
gya
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
2.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public, Law and Order Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
3.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai H.C.P.No.486 of 2022
4.The Superintendent of Police Tiruvannamalai District
5.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Vellore
6.The Inspector of Police Tiruvannamalai PEW Police Station Tiruvannamalai District
7.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras 13.09.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis