Meena v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 03.12.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA H.C.P.No.1026 of 2021 Meena

...Petitioner/Detenue's wife

Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. District Collector and District Magistrate, Salem District, Salem.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Salem District.

4. The Superintendent of police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Salem District, Salem.

5. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeraganur Police Station, Salem District.

...Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.20/GOONDA/C2/2021 dated 15.06.2021 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Venkatesh, son of Arumugam, aged about 25 years, petitioner's husband now confined at Central Prison, Salem before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanakumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyappraj Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by R.HEMALATHA, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Venkatesh, S/o.Arumugam, aged 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the 2nd respondent by his order dated 15.06.2021 in C.M.P.No.20/GOONDA/C2/2021, holding him to be a "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 3(1) 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 strongly 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 15.06.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 12.07.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 12.07.2021. The remarks were duly received on 26.07.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 09.08.2021.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 14 days in submitting the remarks by the

Detaining Authority, of which 4 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 26.07.2021 and there was a delay of 4 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 there was no Government holiday, hence, there was an unexplained delay of 4 days in considering the representation.

7. In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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 10 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 C.M.P.No.20/GOONDA/C2/2021, dated 15.06.2021, passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Venkatesh, son of Arumugam, aged 25 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

mtl To

1. The Secretary to Government, (Home), The State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Joint Secretary to Government Public, Law and Order Department Secretariat, Chennai-9.

3. The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. District Collector and District Magistrate, Salem District, Salem.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Salem District.

5. The Superintendent of police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Salem District, Salem.

6. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeraganur Police Station, Salem District.

7. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.1026 of 2021 SR[co] NSK 07/12/2021