Aachi, 53 Yrs, v. Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.10.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR H.C.P.No.1749 of 2017 Aaachi ... Petitioner -vs1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, ... Respondents Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the second respondent in C3/D.O/NO.18 of 2017 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband Kora Ramasamy son of Vellaiyan, aged 50 years, Mariamman Koil Street, M.Parur Post, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District, who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Cuddalore, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Murali For Respondents:
Mr. V.M.R.Rajentran Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.] The petitioner is the Wife of the detenu, namely, Kora Ramasamy, S/o.Vellaiyan, Male, aged about 50 years. The detenu has been detained by the 2nd respondent by his order in C3/D.O./18/2017, dated 02.05.2017, 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 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 02.05.2017. The petitioner made representations, dated 15.05.2017, 05.06.2017 and 08.07.2017 and the same was received on 30.05.2017, 13.06.2017 and 19.07.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 31.05.2017, 13.06.2017 and 19.07.2017. The remarks were duly received on 22.06.2017, 29.06.2017 and 16.08.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 24.06.2017, 03.07.2017 and 11.09.2017.
6.It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 21, 15 and 27 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 6, 5 and 9 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 15, 10 and 18 days in submitting the remarks. Thereafter, there was another delay of 3, 21 days in considering the representation, of which 2 and 7 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was another inordinate delay of 1 and 14 days in considering the representation.
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 Anbazhagansthan 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 15, 10 and 18 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 1 and 14 days in considering the representation. 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 C3/D.O./18/2017, dated 02.05.2017, passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Kora Ramasamy, S/o.Vellaiyan, Male, aged about 50 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-III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar pam To:
1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore-4.
4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public(Law and order) Fort. St. George Chennai 9.
H.C.P.No.1749 of 2017 SP(27/10/2017)