Madras High Court
G.Rajalakshmi vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 19 October, 2022
Author: J. Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu, N. Anand Venkatesh
HCP(MD)No.533 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
H.C.P.(MD)No.533 of 2022
G.Rajalakshmi ... Petitioner / Mother of the Detenue
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Trichirappalli City,
Trichirappalli.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Ariyamangalam Police Station,
Trichirappalli City,
Trichirappalli District.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Trichy. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order
of detention passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in C.No.
28/Detention/C.P.O./T.C./2022 dated 04.03.2022 and quash the same and
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.533 of 2022
consequently set the detenu namely A.B.Aravind s/o Balaguru, Male aged
about 25 years, who is presently confined at Central Prison Tiruchirappalli
at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Aravinth, S/o.Balaguru, aged 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.28/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2022, dated 04.03.2022 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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. Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.533 of 2022
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.
5.The Detention Order in question was passed on 04.03.2022. The petitioner made a representation dated 14.03.2022. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 22.03.2022. The remarks were duly received on 22.03.2022. Thereafter, the Government Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.533 of 2022 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 the remarks were received on 22.03.2022 and there was a delay of 59 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, 21 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was inordinate delay of 38 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 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. Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.533 of 2022
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 38 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. 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 C.No.28/Detention/C.P.O/T.C./2022 dated 04.03.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Aravinth, S/o.Balaguru, aged 25 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(J.N.B.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.)
19.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ta
Page 5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.533 of 2022
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
ta
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichirappalli City, Trichirappalli.
3.The Inspector of Police, Ariyamangalam Police Station, Trichirappalli City, Trichirappalli District.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. H.C.P.(MD)No.533 of 2022
19.10.2022 Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis