S.Deeru Syed v. The Principal Secretary To Govt.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.03.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN H.C.P.No.1261 of 2021 S.Deeru Syed .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, E.V.K. Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Women Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Job Racket Wing, Team-28, Vepery, Chennai.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 26.07.2021 vide order in Memo No.198/BCDFGISSSV/2021, against the petitioner's sister Reshma Dawood, aged about 38 years, D/o.Sheik Dawood, who is confined at the Central Women Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent to produce the detenue before this Court thereby setting her at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Parthiban For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] The petitioner is the sister of the detenue Reshma Dawood, aged about 38 years, D/o.Sheik Dawood. The detenue has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.198/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 26.07.2021, holding her to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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 detenue 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 26.07.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 18.08.2021. Thereafter,
remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 24.08.2021. The remarks were duly received on 06.09.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 20.10.2021.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 13 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 5 days were Government Holiday and hence there was an inordinate delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 06.09.2021 and 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, 16 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 28 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 detenue.
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 detenue 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 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 28 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 No.198/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 26.07.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The
detenue, viz., Reshma Dawood, aged about 38 years, D/o.Sheik Dawood, is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar nsd To 1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, E.V.K. Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Job Racket Wing, Team-28, Vepery, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1261 of 2021 MG(CO) CB(31/03/2022)