R.Jothi v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.06.2021 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Ms. Justice R.N.MANJULA H.C.P. No.2446 of 2020 R.Jothi ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police, Kalasapakkam 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 entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's son Premkumar, Son of Ravi, Male, aged about 24 years is presently lodged in Central Prison, Vellore and has been detained under Act 14/82 as a "GOONDA" vide detention order dated 20.11.2020 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein, made in D.O.No.128/2020C2 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenu before this Hon'ble Court and thereafter set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajavelu For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu - Premkumar, Son of Ravi, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained
by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.128/2020-C2 dated 20.11.2020, holding him 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 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 20.11.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 26.11.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 03.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 23.12.2020. 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 20 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 6 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 14 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 23.12.2020 and there was delay of 17 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 5 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 12 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 14 days in submitting the remarks and 12 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.128/2020-C2 dated 20.11.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Premkumar, Son of Ravi, aged about 24 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 mmi/rna To 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police, Kalasapakkam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and order) Fort.St.George, Chennai 9. 7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2446 of 2020 RP(CO) A.SK(22.06.2021)