Tmt.Anandavalli, v. The Commissioner Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE : 14.06.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA AND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA H.C.P. NO. 116 OF 2018 Anandavalli .. Petitioner/Daughter of the Detenue - Vs -

1. The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police Egmore, Chennai City Chennai 600 020.

2. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Govt.

Dept. of Prohibition & Excise (Home) Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

3. The Superintendent Special Prison for Women Puzhal, Chennai.

.. Respondents Petition filed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in No.784/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 22.12.2017 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenue Velazhagi, W/o Manivannan, aged about 56 years, now confined at Special Prison for Women Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr. T.S.Srinivasan For Respondents: Mr. R.Prathap Kumar, APP

ORDER

(DELIVERED BY DR. S.VIMALA, J.) The 1st respondent, Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, clamped an order of detention on 22.12.2017 as against Velazhagi, W/o Manivannan, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenue is a 'Drug Offender' and she has to be detained under Section 3 (1) of

Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 with a view to preventing her from acting prejudicial to the interest of public health and public order.

2. Challenging the order of detention, the daughter of the detenue has come forward with the present habeas corpus petition.

3. Heard Mr.Janardhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

4. It is contended that there is a delay in considering the representation and this has rendered the detention illegal. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents conceded that though there is a delay of 8 days but it in no way vitiates the order of detention. Though such a contention is advanced, however, no explanation has been adduced by the respondents explaining the delay.

5. In Rashid Kapadia v. Medha Gadgil, (2012 (11) SCC 745), the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the effect of delay in considering the representation and in that context held as under :- "13.It is well settled that the right of a person, who is preventively detained, to make a representation and have it considered by the authority concerned as expeditiously as possible, is a constitutional right under Article 22(5). Any unreasonable and unexplainable delay in considering the representation is held to be fatal to the continued detention of the detenu. The proposition is too well settled in a long line of decisions of this Court. We do not think it necessary to examine the authorities on this aspect, except to take note of a couple of judgments where the principle is discussed in detail. They are: Mohinuddin v. District Magistrate, Beed [(1987) 4 SCC 58 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 674] and Harshala Santosh Patil v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 12 SCC 211 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 680]."

6. In view of the above proposition, the delay in considering the representation submitted by the petitioner, which has not been explained properly has vitiated the order of detention. The delay is fatal to the order of detention and this has rendered the detention illegal.

7. On this short ground, the order of detention is quashed. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenue, Velazhagi, W/o Manivannan, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is otherwise required in any other case. -s/d- Assistant Registrar(CCC) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar GLN To

1. The Secretary to Govt.

Dept. of Prohibition & Excise (Home) Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police Commissioner Office, Egmore Chennai 600 020.

3. The Superintendent Special Prison for Women Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government Public(Law and order) Fort. St. George Chennai 9.

5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras 104.

H.C.P. NO. 116 OF 2018 NRI(CO) SP(05/07/2018)