S.Lakshmi, F/A.29 Years v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 08.12.2017 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDER & THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR H.C.P.No.2084 of 2017 S.Lakshmi ... Petitioner/Wife of Detenue Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu rep. By, Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai- 600 007. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in Memo No.BCDFGISSSV No. 465/2017 dated 29.07.2017 on the file of second respondent herein to set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue i.e the body of Seenu @ Seenivasan S/o. Perumal, male aged about 35 years the detenue detained Under Act 14 of 1982 in detention order Memo No.BCDFGISSSV No.465/2017 dated 29.07.2017 herein now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty and pass orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.D. AmalRaj For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, Addl. 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, Seenu @ Seenivasan, male, aged about 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.BCDFGISSSV 465/2017 dated 29.07.2017, 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 representations made by the petitioner was not considered on 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 29.07.2017. The petitioner made a representation, dated 02.08.2017 and the same was received on 03.08.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 03.08.2017. The remarks were duly received on 09.08.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 16.08.2017.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence there was a delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks. Thereafter, there was another delay of 7 days in considering the representation, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence there was a delay of 5 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 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 unexplained delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 5 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 BCDFGISSSV No.465/2017 dated 29.07.2017, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Seenu @ Seenivasan, male, aged about 35 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. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS IV ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

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

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

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

[In duplicate for communication to the detenu]

6.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

H.C.P.No.2084 of 2017 KJ(CO) NR 08/12/2017