Madras High Court
S.Vasuki vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 2022
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash, A.A.Nakkiran
H.C.P.No.2068 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.02.2022
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
H.C.P.No.2068 of 2021
S.Vasuki
Wife of Sethuraman .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police Salem City,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Linemedu, Salem-636 006.
3. The Superintendent of Prisons,
Office of the Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Salem.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Shevapet Police Station,
Shevapet Main Road,
Salem - 636 002. .. Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2068 of 2021
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records, of the
proceedings in C.M.P.No.54/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 02.08.2021 on
the file of the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal and
without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to produce the
body of the detenu Sedhuraman s/o. Natarajan, aged 49 years, presently
detained in the Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Praveen Purohit
For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by A.A.NAKKIRAN, J] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz.,Sedhuraman s/o.Natarajan, aged 49 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.M.P.No.54/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 02.08.2021, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2068 of 2021
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 Additional Public Prosecutor strongly 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 Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and thus, there is no 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2068 of 2021 violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 02.08.2021. The petitioner made a representation dated 05.08.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 09.08.2021. The remarks were duly received on 15.09.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 28.10.2021.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 36 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 12 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 24 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 15.09.2021 and there was a delay of 1 day in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, P&E after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it. Hence, there was inordinate 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2068 of 2021 delay of 1 day in considering the representation.
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. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2068 of 2021
10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 24 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 1 day in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, P&E. 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.M.P.No.54/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 02.08.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Sedhuraman s/o. Natarajan, aged 49 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[P.N.P., J] [A.A.N., J]
25.02.2022
Index: Yes/No
gm
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2068 of 2021
To
1.The Secretary,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police Salem City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Linemedu, Salem-636 006.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Salem.
4. The Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station, Shevapet Main Road, Salem - 636 002.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2068 of 2021 P.N.PRAKASH, J and A.A.NAKKIRAN, J gm H.C.P.No.2068 of 2021 25.02.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis