Kanniammal v. The Secretary To The Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.06.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Ms. Justice R.N.MANJULA H.C.P.No.1916 of 2020 Kanniammal ... Petitioner/Wife of the Detenue Vs 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.
2.District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore - 2.
5.The Inspector of Police, Polur PEW Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
.... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 07.10.2020 in D.O.No.108/2020-C2 against the petitioner husband Arumugam, Male aged 54 years S/o. Annamalai, who is confined at Central Prison Vellore, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Hon'ble Court and set him at Liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.D.Balaji For Respondents:
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) The petitioner is the wife of Arumugam, S/o. Annamalai, male, aged 54 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.108/2020-C2, dated 07.10.2020 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 Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 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 Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 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 Government Advocate (Criminal Side), 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 07.10.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 24.10.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 02.11.2020. The remarks were duly received on 08.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 11.01.2021.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 36 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 11 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 25 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 08.12.2020 and there was delay of 32
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 10 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 22 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 25 days in submitting the remarks and 22 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 D.O.No.108/2020-C2, dated 07.10.2020 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Arumugam, S/o. Annamalai, male, aged 54 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi/ssm To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.
2.District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore - 2.
5.The Inspector of Police, Polur PEW Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No.1916 of 2020 pp[co] srg 11/06/2021