G. Chithra, 30 Yrs, v. Secretary To Government Home,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.10.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR H.C.P. No.1014 of 2017 G.Chithra ... Petitioner -vs1.
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department , Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.
The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3.
The Inspector of Police L & O, E-3, Teynampet Police Station Chennai.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent in No.319/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 01.06.2017 against the husband of the petitioner, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Ganesan, S/o.Ravinarayanan, aged about 36 years and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Premkumar For Respondents: Mr.V.M.R. Rajendran Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by N. SATISH KUMAR, J.] The petitioner is the wife of detenu, namely, Ganesan, S/o.Ravinarayanan, aged about 36 years. The detenu has been detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, as per the Order of the second respondent in 319/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 01.06.2017, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel 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 with regard to the same.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 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 01.06.2017. The petitioner made representations, dated 29.06.2017 and 21.07.2017 and the same were received on 30.06.2017 and 21.07.2017 respectively. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 30.06.2017 and 21.07.2017 respectively. The remarks were duly received on 05.07.2017 and 02.08.2017 respectively.. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representations on 10.07.2017 and 24.08.2017 respectively.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 4 days and 11 days respectively in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days and 4 days were Government Holidays and hence there was a delay of 2 days and 7 days in submitting the respective remarks. Thereafter, there was another delay of 4 days and 20 days in considering the respective representations, of which 2 days and 8 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was another inordinate delay of 2 days and 12 days in considering the respective representations.
7. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 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, reported in 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.
10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is a unexplained delay of 2 days and 7 days in submitting the respective remarks by the Detaining Authority and 2 days and 12 days in considering the respective representations. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in order No.319/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 01.06.2017, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Ganesan, S/o.Ravinarayanan, aged about 36 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Given the nature of the case, this order will be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent by the Registrar General of this Court via Fax.
s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To:
1.
The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.
The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3.
The Inspector of Police L & O, E-3, Teynampet Police Station Chennai.
4.
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public(Law and order) Fort. St. George Chennai 9 6.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No.1014 of 2017 RV(CO) sp(13/10/2017)