Kalidas v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09..01..2023 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH Habeas Corpus Petition No.1289 of 2022 Mr.Kalidas S/o.Ragupathy .. Petitioner Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate of Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai 4.The Superintendent of Police, Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirapalli.
5.The Circle Inspector of Police, Sirkazi Police Station, Sirkazi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District.
.. Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records leading to the detention of my mother who is detained as Bootlegger at 4th respondent/Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirapalli by the 2nd respondent vide his order C.O.C.No.14/2022 dated 10.05.2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 5th respondent to produce the body of the detenue R.Vimala, W/o. Ragupathy aged about 59 years from the 4th respondent/Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirapalli before this Court and set her liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Om Sai Ram For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH.J.,] The petitioner is the son of the detenue viz., Vimala W/o Ragupathy. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.O.C.No.14/2022 dated 10.05.2022, holding her 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 10.05.2022. A representation was made on behalf of the detenu on 12.06.2022 which was received 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 47 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 33 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 33 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 C.O.C.No.14/2022 dated 10.05.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Vimala W/o Ragupathy, is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case.
(P.N.P., J.) (N.A.V.,J.) 09..01..2023 Index: Yes/No kmk
To 1.The Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate of Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai 4.The Superintendent of Police, Special Prison for Women, Thiruchirapalli.
5.The Circle Inspector of Police, Sirkazi Police Station, Sirkazi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai 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. 1289 of 2022 09..01..2023