Nangalakshmi v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.08.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P.No.1388 of 2024 NANGALAKSHMI ... Petitioner Vs.
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI 600009.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KALLAKURICHI DISTRICT, KALLAKURICHI.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KALLAKURICHI, KALLAKURICHI DISTRICT.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON, CENTRAL PRISON, CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
5. STATE REP BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KACHIRARAPALAYAM POLICE STATION, KALLAKURICHI DISTRICT.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, relating to the petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 31.05.2024, on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo. D.O.NO. C2/14/2024, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely PARUVATHAM s/o Rangasamy, aged 39 years before this Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sasikumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The order of detention passed by the second respondent in proceedings Memo. D.O.NO. C2/14/2024, dated 31.05.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The impugned order of detention has been issued by the second respondent herein. Admittedly, there is no adverse case against the detenue as per the detention order. However, it is admitted that there is a delay of four days in considering the representation submitted on behalf of the detenue and therefore, the order of detention is not inconsonance with the legal principles settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
3.Strict application of procedure is to be followed in preventive detention cases. Even a small lapse will end in favour of the detenue and this being the strict construction to be made in the preventive detention cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that the detenue is entitled for the relief. Personal liberty being hallmarked and a valuable fundamental right, its infringement has been viewed seriously by the constitutional Courts time and again. The delay in considering the representation caused prejudice to the detenue. Therefore, the said delay must be held in favour of the detenue.
4.Consequently, the impugned order of detention in proceedings Memo. D.O.NO.C2/14/2024, dated 31.05.2024 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed. The detenue, namely, Paruvatham, s/o Rangasamy, aged 39 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is otherwise required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.] 13.08.2024 sli Index :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No :
Yes/No
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
sli To
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI 600009.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KALLAKURICHI DISTRICT, KALLAKURICHI.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KALLAKURICHI, KALLAKURICHI DISTRICT.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON, CENTRAL PRISON, CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
H.C.P.No.1388 of 2024
5. STATE REP BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KACHIRARAPALAYAM POLICE STATION, KALLAKURICHI DISTRICT.
6. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
13.08.2024