Madras High Court
Radha Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 19 September, 2022
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
H.C.P.No.534 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.09.2022
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
H.C.P.No.534 of 2022
Radha Krishnan .. Petitioner
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of
Tiruvannamalai District,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Vellore District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Kilkodungalore Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.534 of 2022
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the
detention order in D.O.No.07/2022-C2 dated 12.02.2022 passed by
the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set
aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's
brother Arunkumar, S/o.Marimuthu, aged about 25 years, the detenu,
now confined in the Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set
the petitioner's brother Arun Kumar, S/o.Marimuthu, aged about 25
years, the detenu herein, at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Mady by P.N.PRAKASH, J.) The petitioner is the brother of the detenu Arunkumar, S/o.Marimuthu, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.07/2022-C2 dated 12.02.2022, 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.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.534 of 2022 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 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 on behalf of the detenu was not considered in time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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.No.534 of 2022
5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 12.02.2022. A representation was made on behalf of the detenu on 28.03.2022. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 31.03.2022. The remarks were duly received on 18.04.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 19.04.2022.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 18 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 8 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks.
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. Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.534 of 2022
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 10 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.07/2022-C2 dated 12.02.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Arunkumar, Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.534 of 2022 S/o.Marimuthu, aged about 25 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(P.N.P., J.) (TKRJ) 19.09.2022 Index: Yes/No nsd Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.534 of 2022 To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Kilkodungalore Police Station, Tiruvannamalai 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.
Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.534 of 2022 P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
nsd H.C.P.No.534 of 2022 19.09.2022 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis