Reka v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14..12..2022 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH Habeas Corpus Petition No.1160 of 2022 Reka, W/o Pathmanaban ..... Petitioner -Versus1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
5.State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore District.
.... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records relating to the order of detention detaining the petitioner's husband under TN Act 14/1982 vide detention order dated 27.05.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C3/D.O/18/2022 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Pathamanaban, S/o Perumal, aged 42 years, now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sasikumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH.J.,] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Pathmanaban Son of Perumal. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by Memo Memo C3/D.O/18/2022 dated 27.05.2022, holding him to be a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2(b) 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 27.05.2022. A representation was made on behalf of the detenu on 15.06.2022 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 01.08.2022.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 44 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, 14 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an 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 30 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. 1.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of
detention in Memo C3/D.O/18/2022 dated 27.05.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Pathmanaban, Son of Perumal, 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.) 14..12..2022 Index: Yes/No kmk
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
5.State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore District.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
P.N.PRAKASH.J., AND N.ANAND VENKATESH.J., kmk H.C.P.No.1160 of 2022 14..12..2022