Anumol v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN H.C.P.No.2377 of 2020 Anumol, W/o.Anoop Kumar ...
Petitioner /Wife of the detenu versus 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Coimbatore - 641 018.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore - 641 018.
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore Central Prison, Coimbatore - 641 018.
5.The Inspector of Police, Anamalai Police Station, Coimbatore District.
...
Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to produce the body of the detenu by name Anoop Kumar, son of Sivaraman, aged 31 years, presently confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith, after calling for the records pertaining to the detention order dated 30.10.2020 vide Cr.M.P.No.05/G/2020/E1 passed by the second respondent, quash the same.
For Petitioner : M/s.A.Nowfal For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by R.PONGIAPPAN, J.] The petitioner is the wife of Anoop Kumar, son of Sivaraman, aged about 31 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 30.10.2020 in Cr.M.P.No.05/G/2020/E1, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the 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 (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in this Petition, 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 (Crl. Side) has filed a counter and strongly opposed this 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 (Crl. 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 30.10.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 10.11.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 16.11.2020. The remarks were duly received on 01.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 04.12.2020.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 15 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 4 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 01.12.2020 and there was inordinate delay of 3 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department.
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 11 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 3 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 Cr.M.P.No.05/G/2020/E1 dated 30.10.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Anoop Kumar, son of Sivaraman, aged about 31 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
sri To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Coimbatore - 641 018.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore - 641 018.
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore Central Prison, Coimbatore - 641 018.
5.The Inspector of Police, Anamalai Police Station, Coimbatore 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.
+1cc to M/s.A.Nowfal, Advocate, S.R.No.29798 H.C.P.No.2377 of 2020 SKY(CO) CB(16/07/2021)