Madras High Court
Pushpam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 February, 2021
Author: K.Kalyanasundaram
Bench: K.Kalyanasundaram, G.Ilangovan
H.C.P.(MD) No.626 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
H.C.P.(MD) No.626 of 2020
Pushpam ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by Principal Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-9
2.The District Magistrate cum District Collector
Pudukkottai District
Pudukkottai
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Trichy
4.The Inspector of Police
Gandarvakottai Police Station
Pudukkottai District ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records
relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent in
Detention Order PDO.No.68/2020, dated 21.08.2020 and to quash the
Page 1 of 6
http://www.judis.nic.in
H.C.P.(MD) No.626 of 2020
same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the
detenu, Kamalahasan, son of Perumal @ Alagar, aged about 30 years,
before this Court and set him at liberty, now detained at Central Prison,
Trichy.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.Dinesh Babu
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Kamalahasan, son of Perumal @ Alagar, aged about 30 years, challenging the detention order in PDO.No.68/2020, dated 21.08.2020, passed by the second respondent, branding him as “Goonda” as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
2. Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would argue that even though the petitioner has raised several grounds, he has confined his arguments only to the delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Page 2 of 6 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD) No.626 of 2020 petitioner that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have not been followed in this case and there is unexplained and inordinate delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation, which would vitiate the impugned order of detention.
3. Mr.K.Dinesh Babu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while reiterating the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the detention order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order. It is also stated that even if there is any delay in disposal of the representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. In the instant case, the proforma furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would indicate that as against the impugned detention order, the petitioner made a representation to the Page 3 of 6 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD) No.626 of 2020 first respondent on 31.08.2020 and it was received on 03.09.2020. Remarks were called for on the same day i.e.03.09.2020 and it was received on 25.09.2020. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on the same day i.e.25.09.2020. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 04.11.2020 and the representation came to be rejected on 06.11.2020. It is seen that in between 25.09.2020 and 04.11.2020, there was a delay of 30 days, after excluding the Government Holidays of nine days, in considering the petitioner's representation.
6. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in 1999 (1) SCC 417, wherein the Apex Court has 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 nay indifference or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner.
7. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the delay of 30 days in considering the representation of the petitioner has not been properly explained by the respondents. Hence, in our considered view, the Page 4 of 6 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD) No.626 of 2020 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 Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order in PDO.No.68/2020, dated 21.08.2020, passed by the second respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Kamalahasan, son of Perumal @ Alagar, aged about 30 years, who is now detained at Central Prison, Trichy, 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.]
02.02.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
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.
krk Page 5 of 6 http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.(MD) No.626 of 2020 K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and G.ILANGOVAN, J.
krk To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Magistrate cum District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.
4.The Inspector of Police, Gandarvakottai Police Station, Pudukkottai District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.H.C.P.(MD) No.626 of 2020
02.02.2021 Page 6 of 6 http://www.judis.nic.in