Chandrasekari v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN H.C.P.No.2423 of 2020 Chandrasekari, W/o.Kanakasabai ...
Petitioner / Mother of the detenu versus 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
3.The Superintendent of Police, 4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police, Sevvapet Police Station, ...
Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the second respondent herein pertaining to the detention order made in BCDFGISSSV No.60/2020 dated 11.11.2020 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu namely Chandrasekar @ Chandru, aged about 38 years, now detained in Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the detenu at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by R.PONGIAPPAN, J.] The petitioner is the mother of Chandrasekar @ Chandru, son of Kanagasabai, aged about 38 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 11.11.2020 in BCDFGISSSV No.60/2020, 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) 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 11.11.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 01.12.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 03.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 14.12.2020. 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 11 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 9 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 14.12.2020 and there was a delay of 26 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 7 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 19 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 9 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 19 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 BCDFGISSSV No.60/2020 dated 11.11.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Chandrasekar @ Chandru, son of Kanagasabai, aged about 38 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sri To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police, Sevvapet Police Station, 6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2423 of 2020 A.SK(10.06.2021)