Madras High Court
Parimala vs The Secretary To Government on 17 September, 2020
Bench: N.Kirubakaran, P.Velmurugan
H.C.P.No.863 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.09.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
H.C.P.No.863 of 2020
Parimala ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate of Ranipet District,
Ranipet.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District, Ranipet.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Arcot Town Police Station,
Arcot, Ranipet District. ... Respondents
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
H.C.P.No.863 of 2020
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the
impugned order B3/D.O.No.14/2020 dated 10.02.2020 on file of the 2 nd respondent
herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the
detenue namely Prem Son of Ravichandran, Hindu aged about 23 years now
confined at Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN.J.,) The matter was heard through “Video Conference”.
2.The mother of the Detenu has filed this Petition challenging the Detention Order passed by the Second Respondent in B3/D.O.No.14/2020 dated 10.02.2020 under Section 2 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 based on the ground case registered against him 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.863 of 2020
3.Heard Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents.
4. It is seen from the records that the representation sent on behalf of the detenu has not been considered within time frame and there is a delay of 12 days in considering and disposing of the representation.
5.In the decision in "C.Muthuvali Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009" reported in "[(2017) (1) MWN (Cr.) 270 (DB)]" it has been held that an unexplained delay of nine working days on the part of the Government in considering the representation rendered the detention illegal. Another Division Bench of this Court in "Samaiah Vs.The Secretary to Government" reported in "[(2007) (4) MWN (Cr.) 145]" has held that an unexplained delay of three days in disposal of the representation made by the detenu would be sufficient to set aside the detention order. 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.863 of 2020
6.Further, a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in "Rekha Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu" reported in "2011 5 SCC 244" has held that "Preventive detention is by nature repugnant to democratic ideas and an anathema to the rule of law. No such law exists in the USA and in England (except during war time). However, Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India permits preventive detention, we cannot hold it illegal but we must confine the power of preventive detention within very narrow limits, otherwise we will be taking away the great right to liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India which was won after long, arduous, historic struggles".
7.Since there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation submitted by the detenu, the detention order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside.
8.Accordingly, the detention order passed by the Second Respondent in B3/D.O.No.14/2020 dated 10.02.2020 is quashed. The detenu viz., Prem Son of Ravichandran, Hindu aged about 23 years now confined at Central Prison, Salem is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.863 of 2020
9.On technical grounds only, the detention order has been quashed by this Court. The very purpose of detention is to prevent the detenu from repeating offences and that public safety is ensured. Since this Court has quashed the detention order, in the interest of public and in the interest of justice, this Court is justified in directing the detenu to appear before the jurisdictional Police Station, every Monday at 11.00 A.M., till 09.02.2021. The very purpose of this direction is to ensure that the detenu does not repeat the commission of offence and that the police can also have a watch over the movement of the detenu, even if he is outside the prison. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
(N.K.K.,J.) (P.V.,J.)
17.09.2020
ay
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai-600 009.
5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.863 of 2020 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
AND P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ay
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Ranipet District, Ranipet.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District, Ranipet.
H.C.P.No.863 of 2020
5.The Inspector of Police, Arcot Town Police Station, Arcot, Ranipet District.
6.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
8.The Joint Secretary Public (Law and Order) Department Secretariat Fort St.George Chennai – 600 009.
Dated:17.09.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in