Rani v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.03.2021 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P.No.1696 of 2020 Rani .. Petitioner/ wife of the detenu Vs.

1.State rep. by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri.

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

4.The Inspector of Police, Harur Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

5.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in S.C.No.03/2020 dated 12.08.2020 on the file of the second respondent and quash detention as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Sudhakar @ Loan Erumai, S/o.Ramamoorthy, aged about 40 years, now confined in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajanikanth For Respondents: Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by V.SIVAGNANAM.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Sudhakar @ Loan Erumai, S/o.Ramamoorthy, aged about 40 years. The detenu has

been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 12.08.2020 in S.C.No.03/2020, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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 12.08.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 19.08.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 16.09.2020. The remarks were duly received on 25.09.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 04.11.2020.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 9 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 25.09.2020 and there was a delay of 40 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 15 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 25 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 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 25 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 S.C.No.03/2020 dated 12.08.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Sudhakar @ Loan Erumai, S/o.Ramamoorthy, aged about 40 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 nsd To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri.

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

4.The Inspector of Police, Harur Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

5.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.

6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.1696 of 2020 AD(CO) RMP(01/04/2021)