Madras High Court
Thinsathbegam vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 1 September, 2022
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash, R.Hemalatha
H.C.P.(MD) No.282 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
H.C.P.(MD) No.282 of 2022
Thinsathbegam ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort.St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.282 of 2022
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records connected with the detention
order passed in P.D.O.No.75/2021 dated 31.12.2021 on the file of the second
respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the
body or person of the detenu namely, Afsal @ Afsal Ahamed S/o.Rahamathullah,
aged 19 years, now detained as a Goonda at the central prison, Tiruchirappalli
District, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Made by R.HEMALATHA, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Afsal @ Afsal Ahamed, aged about 19 years, son of Rahamathullah. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his detention order in P.D.O.No.75/2021 dated 31.12.2021, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the 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.(MD) No.282 of 2022
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. 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.(MD) No.282 of 2022
5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 31.12.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 21.02.2022. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 23.02.2022. The remarks were duly received on 25.03.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 23.05.2022.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an inordinate delay of 32 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 8 days were Government Holiday and hence there was a delay of 24 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 25.03.2022 and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of 55 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 19 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 36 days in considering the representation. ____________ Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.282 of 2022
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 24 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and ____________ Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.282 of 2022 unexplained delay of 36 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 in P.D.O.No.75/2021 dated 31.12.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Afsal @ Afsal Ahamed, aged about 19 years, son of Rahamathullah, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[P.N.P., J.] [R.H., J.]
01.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pkn
____________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.282 of 2022
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
____________ Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.282 of 2022 P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and R.HEMALATHA, J.
pkn H.C.P.(MD) No.282 of 2022 01.09.2022 ____________ Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis