Padma v. Additional Chief Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Padma .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
4.The Inspector of Police (L & O), R5 Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 29.09.2022 in Memo No.336/BCDFGISSSV/2022 Page Nos.1/7
against Vinoth @ Vinothkumar, male, aged 37 years, S/o.Moorthy, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Ms.M.Kokila For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 29.09.2022 bearing reference No.336/BCDFGISSSV/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
2. Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law Page Nos.2/7
offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.
3. There are two adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.587 of 2022 on the file of R5 Virugambakkam Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 448, 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4. Ms.M.Kokila, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
Page Nos.3/7
5. Though several grounds have been urged in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing exhorted one point in his campaign against the impugned detention order and that one point turns on delay in considering a representation sent qua impugned detention order.
6.
Responding to the submission, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to the contrary and placed before us the list of dates and the details are as follows: 'Representation dated ..
28.01.2023 Representation received on dated ..
31.01.2023 File submitted on dated ..
08.02.2023 Under Secretary dealt with on ..
08.02.2023 Deputy Secretary dealt with on ..
08.02.2023 Minister dealt with and file received on ..
10.02.2023 Rejection letter prepared on ..
13.02.2023 Rejection letter sent to the detenu ..
13.02.2023 Govt. Holidays Falls on: 04.02.2023 and 05.02.2023' Page Nos.4/7
7.
A careful perusal of the list of dates brings to light that there is six days delay in considering the representation. As regards making an effective representation against a preventive detention order, the same is a constitutional safeguard ingrained in Clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. If this constitutional safeguard is hampered, it vitiates the impugned detention order. We also hasten to make it clear that there cannot be any straight jacket formula with regard to number of days within which a representation has to be disposed of. Delay in considering the representation point has to be dealt with on case to case basis. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the matter, we find that this delay has caused infraction of the detenu's rights qua the preventive detention order. We find that the delay of six days excluding two public/Government holidays is not justified and the point urged by the petitioner enures to the benefit of the petitioner.
8. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 29.09.2022 bearing reference No.336/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set Page Nos.5/7
aside and the detenu Thiru.Vinoth @ Vinothkumar, aged 37 years, S/o.Thiru.Moorthy, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 24.04.2023 Index : Yes mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
4.The Inspector of Police (L & O), R5 Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.6/7
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR , J., mmi 24.04.2023 Page Nos.7/7