Jeeva v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.06.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY and The Honourable Mr. Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA H.C.P.No.18 of 2022 Jeeva .. Petitioner Vs

1. State represented by The Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector and Magistrate, Ranipet, Ranipet District.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District.

4. The Superintendent of Prison, Office of the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.

5. The Inspector of Police, Rathnagiri Police Station, Ranipet District.

.. Respondents Prayaer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records in pursuant to the detention order issued by the 2nd respondent vide B3/D.O.No.89/2021 dated 17.12.2021 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Yuvaraj, S/o.Neelamegan, aged about 36 years, the detenu herein, now confined at the Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran Addl. Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Yuvaraj, S/o.Neelamegan, aged about 36 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in B3/D.O.No.89/2021 dated 17.12.2021, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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 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 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 on behalf of the detenu was not considered in time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.

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 17.12.2021. A representation was made on behalf of the detenu dated NIL. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the detenu from the Detaining Authority on 28.12.2021. The remarks were duly received on 16.02.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 18.04.2022.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 51 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 17 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 34 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 16.02.2022 and there was a delay of 61 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which, 20 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 41 days 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.

10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 34 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 41 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. 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 B3/D.O.No.89/2021 dated 17.12.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Yuvaraj, S/o.Neelamegan, aged about 36 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

nsd To

1. The Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector and Magistrate, Ranipet, Ranipet District.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District.

4. The Superintendent of Prison, Office of the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.

5. The Inspector of Police, Rathnagiri Police Station, Ranipet District.

6. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.18 of 2022 AJB(CO) CT/07/07/2022