P.Manikandan v. The Secretary To The Government
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.10.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN P.Manikandan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Kallakurichi District,Kallakurichi.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Special Prison for Women, Vellore-2.
5.The Inspector of Police, Rishivandiyam Police Station, Kallkurichi District.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention dated 18.03.2022 passed by the second respondent
in D.O.No.C2/10/2022 and quash the same and produce detenue Tmt.Muthukumari, Female, aged 40 years, W/o Manikandan, now detained at the Special Prison for Women, Vellore, before this Court and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Mohamed Saifullah For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.) The petitioner is the husband of the detenue Tmt.Muthukumari, female, aged 40 years. The detenue has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.C2/10/2022 dated 18.03.2022, holding her 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 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 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 on behalf of the detenue was not considered in time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.
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 detenue 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 18.03.2022. A representation was made on behalf of the detenue dated 18.04.2022
which was actually received on 19.04.2022. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 20.04.2022. The remarks were duly received on 06.05.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 12.05.2022.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 16 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 5 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 06.05.2022 and there was a delay of 6 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which, 2 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 4 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 detenue.
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 detenue 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 11 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 4 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, 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 D.O.No.C2/10/2022 dated 18.03.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenue viz., Tmt.Muthukumari, female, aged about 40 years, W/o P.Manikandan, is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case.
(P.N.P., J.) (TKRJ) 28.10.2022 Index: Yes/No nsd
To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Kallakurichi District,Kallakurichi.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Special Prison for Women, Vellore-2.
5.The Inspector of Police, Rishivandiyam Police Station, Kallkurichi District.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
nsd 28.10.2022