Madras High Court
Boopalan vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 26 July, 2022
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash, R.Hemalatha
HCP(MD)No.14 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
H.C.P.(MD)No.14 of 2022
Boopalan : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
For St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Salem Central Prison,
Salem District. : Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.14 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 of the second respondent in
Detention Order No.104/2021 dated 13.11.2021 and quash the same
and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the
detenu by name Boopalan son of Muniyandi, aged about 21 years,
earlier detained at Central Prison, Dindigul and now confined at
Salem Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
*********** [Made by R.HEMALATHA, J.] The petitioner is the detenu viz., Boopalan, aged about 21 years, son of Muniyandi. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.104/2021 dated 13.11.2021, 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 HCP(MD)No.14 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 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 HCP(MD)No.14 of 2022
5.The Detention Order in question was passed on 13.11.2021. The petitioner made a representation on Nil. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 17.12.2021. The remarks were duly received on 30.12.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 16.06.2022.
6.It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 12 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 4 days were Government Holiday 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 30.12.2021 and there was a delay of 163 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 52 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 111 days in considering the representation.
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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.14 of 2022 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 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 111 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.
Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.14 of 2022
11.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order No.104/2021 dated 13.11.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Boopalan, aged about 21 years, son of Muniyandi, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[P.N.P.,J.] & [R.H.,J.]
26.07.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
MR
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.14 of 2022
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, For St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Salem Central Prison, Salem District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.14 of 2022 P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and R.HEMALATHA, J.
MR ORDER MADE IN H.C.P.(MD)No.14 of 2022 26.07.2022 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis