Madras High Court
A.Kanagavalli vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 2 August, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MAD 1819
Bench: P.N.Prakash, R.N.Manjula
H.C.P.No.354 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.08.2021
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.N.MANJULA
H.C.P.No.354 of 2021
A.Kanagavalli .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Paravakottai Police Station,
Tiruvarur District. .. Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.No.354 of 2021
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records from the 2 nd
respondent in connection with the order in C.O.C.No.02/2021 dated
12.01.2021 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's husband
Ananthan, son of Gunasekaran, aged about 40 years, now confined in
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Ananthan, son of Gunasekaran, aged about 40 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.O.C.No.02/2021 dated 12.01.2021, 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. Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.No.354 of 2021
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 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 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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 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. Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.No.354 of 2021
5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 12.01.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 01.02.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 03.02.2021. The remarks were duly received on 24.02.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 15.04.2021.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 21 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 6 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 24.02.2021 and there was a delay of 46 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 15 days were Government Holiday, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 31 days in considering the representation. Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.No.354 of 2021
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.
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 31 days in considering Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.No.354 of 2021 the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department. 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 C.O.C.No.02/2021 dated 12.01.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ananthan, son of Gunasekaran, aged about 40 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(P.N.P.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.) 02.08.2021 Index: Yes/No nsd Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ H.C.P.No.354 of 2021 To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
5.The Inspector of Police, Paravakottai Police Station, Tiruvarur 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.354 of 2021 P.N.PRAKASH,J.
and R.N.MANJULA,J.
nsd H.C.P.No.354 of 2021 02.08.2021 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/