R.Santhiya, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM AND THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM H.C.P.No.1621 of 2018 R.Santhiya ... Petitioner -VsThe State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
... Respondents 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 13.07.2018 made in detention order in C3/D.O/44/2018 passed by the 2nd respondent herein quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Thiru.Ravi, S/o.Arumugam, aged 37, who has been detained in Central Prison at Cuddalore before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Murugabharathi 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 wife of the detenu herein, viz. Ravi, Son of Arumugam, aged 37 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C3/D.O./44/2018, dated 13.07.2018, holding him to be a "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (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 Neyveli Thermal Police Station Crime No.152/2017 379 IPC 2.
Neyveli Township Police Station Crime No.26/2018 379 IPC 3.
Neyveli Township Police Station Crime No.188/2018 379 IPC 4.
Neyveli Township Police Station Crime No.189/2018 379 IPC 5.
Neyveli Township Police Station Crime No.190/2018 379 IPC 6.
Neyveli Township Police Station Crime No.191/2018 379 IPC The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Cr.No.87/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, for offences u/s 397 IPC. The detention order has been passed by second respondent in C3/D.O/44/2018 on 13.07.2018.
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 13.07.2018. The petitioner made a representation, dated 01.08.2018 and the same was received on 07.08.2018. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 09.08.2018. The remarks were duly received on 22.10.2018. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 07.11.2018.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an inordinate delay of 74 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 29 days were Saturdays, Sundays and Government Holidays hence there was a delay of 45 days in submitting the remarks. Thereafter, there was yet another delay of 16 days in considering the representation, of which 6 days were Saturday, Sunday and hence there was a delay of 10 days in considering 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 45 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 10 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 C3/D.O./44/2018, dated 13.07.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely Ravi, Son of Arumugam, aged 37 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 kkn To:
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.
4.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law and order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1621 of 2018 GMY(14/12/2018)