Ravi @ Gilbert Ravi @ v. The Secretary To Government,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.11.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM AND THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM H.C.P.No.1510 of 2018 Ravi @ Gilbert Ravi @ Ravichandran ... Petitioner -Vs1.

The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.

... Respondents PRAYER:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated, 02.07.2018 in No.463/BCDFGISSSV/2018, the detenu Ravi @ Gilbert Ravi @ Ravichandran M/A 32, Son of Devendran, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Hon'ble court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.S. Kaviarasu For Respondents :

Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.] The petitioner is the detenu herein, viz. Ravi @ Gilbert Ravi @ Ravichandran, Son of Devendran, aged about 32 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.463/BCDFGISSSV/2018, dated 02.07.2018, 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. The detenu has come to adverse notice in the following cases:- S.No.

Police Station & Crime No.

Section of Law 147, 148, 341, 294 (b), 302 IPC The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Cr.No.335/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, P-1 Pulianthope Police Station, for offences u/s 147, 148, 341, 294 (b), 323, 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) IPC. The detention order has been passed by second respondent in No.463/BCDFGISSSV/2018. 1.

P-1 Pulianthope Police Station Cr.No.332/2018

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The Detention Order in question was passed on 02.07.2018. The petitioner made a representation, dated 04.08.2018 and the same was received on 07.08.2018. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on the same day. The remarks were duly received on 13.08.2018. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 23.08.2018.

7. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an inordinate delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Saturdays and Sundays and hence there was yet another delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks. Thereafter, there was yet another delay of 10 days

in considering the representation, of which 4 days were Saturdays and Sundays and Government Holidays and hence there was yet another delay of 6 days in considering the representation.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 6 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

12. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.463/BCDFGISSSV/2018, dated 02.07.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Ravi @ Gilbert Ravi @ Ravichandran, Son of Devendran, aged 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ksa-2/kmi

To:

1. The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Joint Secretary, Public (Law and order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.1510 of 2018 CS/03/12/2018