Madras High Court
Paulmari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 March, 2021
Author: K.Kalyanasundaram
Bench: K.Kalyanasundaram, G.Ilangovan
H.C.P.(MD) No.802 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
H.C.P.(MD) No.802 of 2020
Paulmari ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. 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,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
H.C.P.(MD) No.802 of 2020
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records connected with the detention
order passed in M.H.S.Confdl.No.56/2020 dated 04.09.2020 on the file of the 2nd
respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the
detenu or body of the detenu, namely, Paulmari, aged about 24 years, S/o Velaiah,
now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at
liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Dinesh Babu
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.] The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the detenu himself, namely Paulmari, son of Velaiah, Male aged about 24 years, who has been branded as “Goonda” by the second respondent in Detention Order in M.H.S.Confdl.No. 56/2020 dated 04.09.2020, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
2/7 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD) No.802 of 2020
2.Though several grounds have been raised challenging the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent, dated 04.09.2020, Mr.N.Pragalathan, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated and there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner and on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
3.Per contra, Mr.K.Dinesh Babu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would argue that the detaining authority, namely, the second respondent herein, after being satisfied with the materials produced by the sponsoring authority, has passed the detention order only to prevent the detenu from indulging in similar offence in future, which would prejudice to the maintenance of the public order. He would further state that the delay, if any, in considering the representation would not cause any prejudice to the detenu and there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order of detention passed by the second respondent. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition. 3/7 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD) No.802 of 2020
4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on records.
5.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the detenu was detained by the order of the second respondent dated 04.09.2020. Aggrieved over the same, a representation dated 26.09.2020 has been sent to the first respondent and the same was received on 01.10.2020 and on the same day, remarks were called for, but the same were received on 27.11.2020. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 27.11.2020. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 30.11.2020 and thereafter, the detenu's representation was rejected on 02.12.2020. It is seen that there was delay of 56 days between 01.10.2020 and 27.11.2020. It is also seen that there are 12 Government holidays and after excluding the same, there is a delay of 44 days in considering the representation of the detenu.
6.In the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another (1999 (1) SCC 417) the Honourable Apex Court observed and held that it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposal of the representation and if any delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner.
4/7 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD) No.802 of 2020
7. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay of 44 days in considering the representation of the detenu. Hence, in our considered view, the detention order is liable to be set aside solely on the ground of delay by following the decision of the Honourable Apex Court referred supra.
8.In fine, the order of detention passed by the second respondent, in Detention Order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.56/2020 dated 04.09.2020 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Paulmari, son of Velaiah, Male aged about 24 years, now detained at Palayamkottai Central Prison is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [G.I.,J.]
18.03.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
skn
5/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
H.C.P.(MD) No.802 of 2020
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
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, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD) No.802 of 2020 K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and G.ILANGOVAN, J.
skn H.C.P.(MD) No.802 of 2020 18.03.2021 7/7 http://www.judis.nic.in