Syed Banu v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19..12..2022 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH Habeas Corpus Petition Nos.1072 of 2022 Syed Banu, W/o Imran ..... Petitioner -Versus1.The State rep by the Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore.

3.The Superintendent Central Prison, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

.... Respondents

Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the second respondent in connection with order made in D.O.No.58/2022-C3 dated 15.05.2022 passed against petitioner's husband Imran, aged 39 S/o.Abdul Ajeesh who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Hon'ble Court set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON ORDER [Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH.J.,] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Imran Son of Abdul Ajeesh. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by order in D.O.No.58/2022-C3 dated 15.05.2022, 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 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 detenu was not considered in time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. 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 15.05.20222. A

representation was made on behalf of the detenu on 18.05.2022 and remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 14.06.2022.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 20 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, 6 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 14 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 14 days 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.58/2022-C3 dated 15.05.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Imran, aged 39 S/o.Abdul Ajeesh, is

directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

(P.N.P., J.) (N.A.V.,J.) 19..12..2022 Index: Yes/No kmk

To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore.

3.The Superintendent Central Prison, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

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

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.N.PRAKASH.J., AND N.ANAND VENKATESH.J., kmk H.C.P.No.1072 of 2022 19..12..2022