Madras High Court
Vellaikhan Ravi vs The Secretary To The Government on 20 January, 2020
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah, R.Pongiappan
H.C.P.No.2252 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.01.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
H.C.P.No.2252 of 2019
Vellaikhan Ravi ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Vellore, Vellore District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records
relating to the petitioner's wife detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982
vide detention order dated 19.09.2019 on the file of the second respondent
herein made in Proceedings C3/D.O.No.100/2019 quash the same as illegal
and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's
wife namely Geetha, W/o.Vellaikhan Ravi, aged 45 years, before this Court
and set the petitioner's wife at liberty from detention now the petitioner's
wife at liberty from detention now the petitioner's wife detained at Central
Prison – Women, Vellore.
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
H.C.P.No.2252 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.G.P.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
[Order of this Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J] Petitioner is the husband of the detenu viz. Geetha, aged 45 years, W/o.Vellaikhan Ravi, who has been branded as a ‘Bootlegger’ under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of second respondent passed in C3/D.O. No.100/2019 dated 19.09.2019.
2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:
Sl.Nos. Police Station and Crime Section of Law No.
1. Arakkonam Prohibition 4(1)a TNP Act 1937 Enforcement Wing, Crime No.138/2018
2. Arakkonam Prohibition 4(1)a TNP Act 1937 Enforcement Wing, Crime No.74/2019
3. Sholinghur Police Station, 4(1)a, 4(1-A)ii TNP Act Crime No.267/2019 1937 The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.342 of 2019 on the file of the Arakkonam Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offences u/s. 4(1)i, 4(1)aaa, 4(1-A)ii TNP Act 1937 r/w 328 IPC.2/8
http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2252 of 2019 Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents. Perused the materials on record.
4. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, learned counsel for petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. 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. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [(1999) 1 SCC 417].
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be quashed. According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2252 of 2019 and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
6. The Detention Order in question was passed on 19.09.2019. The petitioner submitted the representation on 04.10.2019 and the same was received on 09.10.2019. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 10.10.2019. The remarks were duly received on 01.11.2019. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 29.11.2019 and the same sent to the detenu on 29.11.2019.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an inordinate delay of 20 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and there was yet another delay of 26 days, of which 14 were Government holidays and hence, there was 32 days delay in considering the representation.
8. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal's case (cited supra), it has been held as follows:
4/8
http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2252 of 2019 ‘It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words "as soon as may be " in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest.’
9. As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited Rajammal's case, number of days of delay is immaterial and what is to be considered is whether the delay caused has been properly explained by the authorities concerned. Here, 32 days delay has not been properly explained at all.
10. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala [2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC], the Supreme Court has held that the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is a history of insistence on procedural safeguards. The expression 'as soon as may be', in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India clearly shows the concern of the makers of the Constitution that the representation, made on behalf of the detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.
5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2252 of 2019
11. In the light of the above fact and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of delay on the part of the Government in disposing of the representation of the detenu.
Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent against the detenu viz., Geetha, W/o.Vellaikhan Ravi, in C3/D.O.No.100/2019 dated 19.09.2019, is quashed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
[R.P.S., J] [R.P.A., J]
20.01.2020
Index:yes/no
vga
6/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
H.C.P.No.2252 of 2019
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Vellore, Vellore District.
3.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Vellore.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2252 of 2019 R.SUBBIAH, J and R.PONGIAPPAN, J vga H.C.P.No.2252 of 2019 20.01.2020 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in