Kanniammal v. State Of Tamil Nadu
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.2601 of 2020 Kanniammal
...Petitioner
-vs1.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 at Tiruvallur.
3.The Inspector of Police (L&O), Gummidipoondi Circle Police Station, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
5.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention Order passed by the 2nd respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.46/2020, dated 20.10.2020 for detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act of 1982, as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, Jagan, son of Vasu, aged about 28 years, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Arumugam 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 - Jagan, son of Vasu, aged about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.46/2020, dated 20.10.2020, 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 20.10.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 17.12.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 17.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 04.01.2021. 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 18 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 8 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 04.01.2021 and there was delay of 5 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it.
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 10 days in submitting the remarks and 5 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.46/2020, dated 20.10.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Jagan, son of Vasu, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar mmi/sni To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (law and order) Fort. St. George Chennai 9.
3.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruvallur District at Tiruvallur.
4.The Inspector of Police (L&O), Gummidipoondi Circle Police Station, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District.
5.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
6.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2601 of 2020 JPL(CO) SP(14/06/2021)