Madras High Court
S.Begam Bee vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 26 April, 2022
Bench: P.N.Prakash, A.A.Nakkiran
H.C.P.No.1865 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.04.2022
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN
H.C.P.No.1865 of 2021
S.Begam Bee .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Secretary to the Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Cheyyar Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison Vellore,
Vellore – 632 002. .. Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.1865 of 2021
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to
D.O.No.91/2021-C2 dated 20.10.2021 on the file of the 2nd
respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents
herein to produce the petitioner's husband Syed Kasim, son of Syed
Gudu, aged 51 years, now confined in the Central Prison, Vellore,
before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji
For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Syed Kasim, son of Syed Gudu, aged 51 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.91/2021-C2 dated 20.10.2021, 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. Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1865 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 strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. 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.1865 of 2021
5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 20.10.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 10.10.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 21.10.2021. The remarks were duly received on 09.12.2021. 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 49 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 15 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 34 days in submitting the remarks.
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 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1865 of 2021
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 34 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. 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.91/2021-C2 dated 20.10.2021, passed Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1865 of 2021 by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Syed Kasim, son of Syed Gudu, aged 51 years, 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.) 26.04.2022 Index: Yes/No nsd Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1865 of 2021 To
1.The Secretary to the Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Cheyyar Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
5.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Vellore, Vellore – 632 002.
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.1865 of 2021 P.N.PRAKASH,J.
and A.A.NAKKIRAN,J.
nsd H.C.P.No.1865 of 2021 26.04.2022 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis