S.Jeyasudha v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By

I N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F J U D I C A T U R E A T M A D R A S D A T E D : 1 3 . 1 0 . 2 0 1 7 C O R A M :

T H E H O N O U R A B L E M R . J U S T I C E R A J I V S H A K D H E R a n d T H E H O N O U R A B L E M R . J U S T I C E N . S A T H I S H K U M A R H . C . P. N o . 1 2 2 7 o f 2 0 1 7 S. Jeyasudha ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary Home,Prohibition and Excise Department (Home) Fort. St.George, Chennai - 600 009

2. District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

... Respondents P R A Y E R : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records of the second respondent, in his proceeding No.C2/16907 dated 24.06.2017 to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the Detenu,

Sakthivel, S/o.Arunachalam, aged 36 years now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore set him liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner :

Mr.C.Premkumar For Respondents :

Mr. V.M.R.Rajendran Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R [ O r d e r o f t h e C o u r t w a s m a d e b y N . S A T H I S H K U M A R , J . ] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Sakthivel, aged 36 years, S/o.Arunachalam. The detenu has been detained by the 2nd respondent by his order in No.C2/16907/2017 holding him to be a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2(b) 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 in 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 24.06.2017. The petitioner made a representation, dated 01.08.2017 and the same was received on 02.08.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the

Detaining Authority on the same day, i.e., on 02.08.2017. The remarks were duly received on 16.08.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 11.09.2017. 6 . It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 12 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 06 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 06 days in submitting the remarks. Thereafter, there was another delay of 25 days in considering the representation, of which 09 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was another inordinate delay of 16 days in considering the representation.

7 . In R e k h a v s . S t a t e o f T a m i l N a d u , reported in 2 0 1 1 ( 5 ) S C C 2 4 4 , 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 S u m a i y a v s . T h e S e c r e t a r y t o G o v e r n m e n t , reported in 2 0 0 7 ( 2 ) M W N ( C r. ) 1 4 5 , 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 T a r a C h a n d v s . S t a t e o f R a j a s t h a n a n d o t h e r s , reported in 1 9 8 0 ( 2 ) S C C 3 2 1 , 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. 1 0 . In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 06 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 16 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

1 1 . In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of

detention No.C2/16907 dated 24.06.2017, passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Sakthivel, S/o.Arunachalam, 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.

[ R . S . A . , J . ] [ N . S . K . , J . ] 1 3 . 1 0 . 2 0 1 7 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No rkp Note to office:

1. Issue copy by today itself

2. order will be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent by the Registrar General of this Court via Fax.

To:

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

2. District Collector and District Magistrate,

Villupuram District, Villupuram.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.

R A J I V S H A K D H E R , J .

a n d N . S A T H I S H K U M A R , J .

rkp H . C . P. N o . 1 2 2 7 o f 2 0 1 7

1 3 . 1 0 . 2 0 1 7