Madras High Court
Violetrani vs The State Represented By on 28 June, 2021
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash, R.Pongiappan
H.C.P.No.2471 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
H.C.P.No.2471 of 2020
Violetrani,
W/o.Raja ... Petitioner /
Wife of the detenu
versus
1.The State Represented by,
Secretary to Government (Home),
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and Magistrate,
Ranipet, Ranipet District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet, Ranipet District.
4.The Superintendent of Prisons,
Office of the Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Thorapadi,
Vellore District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Town Police Station,
Arakkonam, Ranipet District. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
H.C.P.No.2471 of 2020
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records in
pursuant to the detention order issued by the second respondent vide
No.B3/D.O.No.106/2020 dated 21.10.2020 and set aside the same and
consequently, direct the respondents to produce the detenu Raja,
S/o.Sekar, aged about 48 years, husband of the petitioner now confined
at Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by R.PONGIAPPAN, J.] The petitioner is the wife of Raja, son of Sekar, aged about 48 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 21.10.2020 in No.B3/D.O.No.106/2020, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/8 H.C.P.No.2471 of 2020
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in this Petition, 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 Government Advocate (Crl. Side) opposed this 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 Government Advocate (Crl. Side), 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/8 H.C.P.No.2471 of 2020
5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 21.10.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 24.11.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 03.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 22.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 11.01.2021.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 19 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 4 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 15 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 22.12.2020 and there was a delay of 18 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 5 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 13 days in considering the representation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/8 H.C.P.No.2471 of 2020
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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/8 H.C.P.No.2471 of 2020
10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 15 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 13 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 No.B3/D.O.No.106/2020 dated 21.10.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Raja, son of Sekar, aged about 48 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[P.N.P.,J.] [R.P.A.,J.] 28.06.2021 Index: Yes/No sri https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/8 H.C.P.No.2471 of 2020 To
1.The State Represented by, Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and Magistrate, Ranipet, Ranipet District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet, Ranipet District.
4.The Superintendent of Prisons, Office of the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Thorapadi, Vellore District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Arakkonam, Ranipet 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7/8 H.C.P.No.2471 of 2020 P.N.PRAKASH, J.
AND R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
sri H.C.P.No.2471 of 2020 28.06.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/8