Sathya Priya v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.01.2021 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P. No. 1332 of 2020 Sathya Priya .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to the Government Prohibition and Excise Dept., Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal.

5.The Inspector of Police E-5, Sholavaram Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 24.06.2020 passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.16 of 2020 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son Yogeswaran @ Shantha, son of Raja (Late), aged 24 years, who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chandrasekar For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, Yogeswaran @ Shantha, son of Raja (Late), aged 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.16 of 2020 dated 24.06.2020 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 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 representation made by the petitioner was not considered on 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 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 24.06.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 24.07.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the

Detaining Authority on 29.07.2020. The remarks were duly received on 17.09.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 06.11.2020.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 50 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 16 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 34 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 17.09.2020 and there was a delay of 48 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 18 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 30 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 34 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 30 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.

11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.16 of 2020, dated 24.06.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The

detenu, namely, Yogeswaran @ Shantha, son of Raja (Late), aged 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssm To 1.The Secretary to the Government Prohibition and Excise Dept., Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal.

5.The Inspector of Police E-5, Sholavaram Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P. No. 1332 of 2020 MGR(CO) CB(17/02/2021)