Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Govindan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 March, 2023

Bench: M.Sundar, M.Nirmal Kumar

                                                                                        H.C.P.No.2000 of 2022

                                       THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 28.03.2023

                                                              CORAM

                                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
                                                     and
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

                                                      H.C.P.No.2000 of 2022

                     Govindan
                     S/o.Seenuvasan                                        .. Petitioner/brother of detenu

                                                                  Vs

                     1.           The State of Tamil Nadu,
                                  Representen by its Secretary,
                                  Department of Home Prohibition and Excise,
                                  Fort St. George,
                                  Chennai - 600 009.

                     2.           The District Collector and District Magistrate,
                                  Kallakurichi District,
                                  Kallakurichi.

                     3.           The Superintendent of Police,
                                  Kallakurichi District,
                                  Kallakurichi.

                     4.           The Superintendent,
                                  Central Prison,
                                  Cuddalore,
                                  Cuddalore District.


                     Page Nos.1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                         H.C.P.No.2000 of 2022



                     5.           The Inspector of Police,
                                  Chinnasalem Police Station,
                                  Chinnasalem Taluk,
                                  Kallakurichi District.                     .. Respondents

                                  Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
                     issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records made in
                     D.O.No.C2/54/2022 dated 26.09.2022 on the file of second Respondent
                     herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce
                     the detenue Thiru.Kumar, son of Seenuvasan, 25 years, now confined at
                     Central Prison, Cuddalore before this court and set him at liberty.

                                  For Petitioner            :      Mr.A.Ramesh
                                  For Respondents           :      Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
                                                                   Additional Public Prosecutor
                                                                   assisted by
                                                                   Mr.M.Sylvester John, Advocate


                                                             ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by brother of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 26.09.2022 bearing reference D.O.No.C2/54/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth Page Nos.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2000 of 2022 respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.

2. Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand- offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There are two adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which is the substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.271 of 2022 on the file of Chinnasalem Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) and 14A of 'The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (Tamil Nadu Act No.10 of 1937)' [hereinafter 'Act 10 of 1937' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to Page Nos.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2000 of 2022 the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr.A.Ramesh, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel for all respondents are before us.

5. Though several grounds have been urged in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing exhorted one point in his campaign against the impugned detention order and that one point turns on delay in considering a representation sent qua impugned detention order.

6. Responding to the aforementioned submission, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to the contrary and placed before us a list of dates and the details of the same are as follows:

                                  'Representation dated               ..    03.10.2022
                                  Representation received date        ..    07.10.2022
                                  File submitted on dated             ..    21.10.2022
                                  Under Secretary dealt with on       ..    21.10.2022


                     Page Nos.4/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                                 H.C.P.No.2000 of 2022

                                  Deputy Secretary dealt with on            ..        21.10.2022
                                  Minister dealt with and file received on ..         26.10.2022
                                  Rejection letter prepared on              ..        26.10.2022
                                  Rejection letter sent to the detenu on    ..        27.10.2022
                                  Government Holidays Falls on:

08.10.2022, 09.10.2022, 15.10.2022, 16.10.2022, 22.10.2022, 23.10.2022 and 24.10.2022' S.No. Representation Column 6 to 7 Column 9 to 10 1. No. of days 13 4 2. No. of holidays 4 3 Total delay days 9 1 Total 10 Days Delay

7. We find that even if the intervening 07 public/Government holidays 08.10.2022, 09.10.2022, 15.10.2022, 16.10.2022, 22.10.2022, 23.10.2022 and 24.10.2022 are excluded, there is a delay of 10 days in considering the representation. We make it clear that the delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively. It has to be decided qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances and the trajectory the representation has taken, in other words, it has to be decided on case to case basis. In the case on hand, we adopt such an approach and we find that 10 days delay vitiates the Page Nos.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2000 of 2022 impugned detention order. We also hasten to make it clear that there can be no straight jacket formula in terms of number of days as regards this point is concerned and therefore, this order will not serve as precedent in all and every case.

8. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 26.09.2022 bearing reference D.O.No.C2/54/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Kumar, aged 25 years, son of Thiru.Seenuvasan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                     (M.S.,J.)       (M.N.K.,J.)
                                                                             28.03.2023

                     Index : Yes / No
                     Speaking / non-speaking
                     Neutral Citation : Yes / No
                     rsi

P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Cuddalore.

Page Nos.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2000 of 2022 To

1. The Secretary, Department of Home Prohibition and Excise, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi.

4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

5. The Inspector of Police, Chinnasalem Police Station, Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page Nos.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2000 of 2022 M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., rsi H.C.P.No.2000 of 2022 28.03.2023 Page Nos.8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis