Madras High Court
R.Rani vs The Secretary To Government on 20 January, 2020
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah, R.Pongiappan
H.C.P.No.2104 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.2104 of 2019
R.Rani ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur 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 son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982
vide detention order, dated 13.09.2019 on the file of the second respondent
herein made in proceedings Memo Cr.M.P. No.09/Goonda/2019 and quash
the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to
produce the said petitioner's son namely Sivaranjith @ Ranjithkumar, S/o.
Rajagopal, aged 24 years before this Court and set the petitioner's son at
liberty from detention, now petitioner's son detained at Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
H.C.P.No.2104 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
[Order of this Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J] Petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz. Sivaranjith @ Ranjithkumar, S/o. Rajagopal, aged 24 years, who has been branded as a ‘Goonda’ under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of second respondent passed in Cr.M.P. No.09/Goonda/2019 dated 13.09.2019.
2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:
Sl.Nos. Police Station and Crime Section of Law No.
1. Tiruppur District Uthukkuli 379 IPC Police Station, Crime No.503/2017
2. Tiruppur City Central Police 392 IPC Station, Crime No.97/2018
3. Tiruppur City North Police 392 IPC Station, Crime 229/2018
4. Coimbatore District 392 IPC Karumathampatti Police Station, Crime No.229/2018
5. Tiruppur District 392 IPC Perumanallur Police Station, Crime No.83/2019 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2104 of 2019 The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.322 of 2019 on the file of the Perumanallur Police Station for the offence u/s. 397 IPC. 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 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2104 of 2019 impugned detention order cannot be quashed. According to 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.
6. The Detention Order in question was passed on 13.09.2019. The petitioner submitted the representation on 23.10.2019 and the same was received on 24.10.2019. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 24.10.2019. The remarks were duly received on 18.11.2019. 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 02.12.2019.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an inordinate delay of 24 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and there was yet another delay of 12 days, of which 9 were Government holidays and hence, there was 27 days delay in considering the representation.
4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2104 of 2019
8. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal's case (cited supra), it has been held as follows:
‘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, 27 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 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2104 of 2019 be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.
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., Sivaranjith @ Ranjithkumar, S/o. Rajagopal, in D.O. No.09/Goonda/2019 dated 13.09.2019, 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.2104 of 2019
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2104 of 2019 R.SUBBIAH, J and R.PONGIAPPAN, J vga H.C.P.No.2104 of 2019 20.01.2020 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in