Bommi v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 31.08.2021 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA H.C.P.No.399 of 2021 Bommi W/o.Irusappan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3.The Inspector of Police, P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station, Chennai.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

... Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 29.01.2021 in Memo No.23/BCDFGISSSV/2021 against the petitioner's sister's son Babu @ Sarathbabu S/o.Rajasekar, aged about 26 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Lingakumar For Respondents:

Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate [crl.side]

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by R.N.MANJULA, J] The petitioner is the aunt of the detenu viz., Babu @ Sarathbabu S/o.Rajasekar, aged about 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.23/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 29.01.2021, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 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 appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] 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.

4. The learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] strongly 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 Government Advocate [Crl.side], 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 29.01.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 01.03.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 04.03.2021. The remarks were duly received on 09.03.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 15.04.2021.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government holidays and hence, there was a delay of 2 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 09.03.2021 and

there was a delay of 31 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 11 days were Government holidays. Hence, there was inordinate delay of 22 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 2 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 20 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, 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 Memo No.23/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 29.01.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Babu @ Sarathbabu S/o.Rajasekar, aged about 26 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

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

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3.The Inspector of Police, P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station, Chennai.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

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

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.399 of 2021 rk[co] srg 01/09/2021