P.Jothi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.06.2020 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR H.C.P. No. 2769 of 2019 P.Jothi Wife of Palaniyappan No.254, K.N.K.Road Karungal Palayam Erode.

...Petitioner/ Mother of detenue

-vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.District Collector and District Magistrate Office of District Collector Office and District Magistrate, Erode District.

... Respondents/ Respondents Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 08.11.2019 made in No.Cr.M.P.No. 29/Goonda/2019/C1 passed against the petitioner's son Muniappan Son of Palaniappan, aged about 32, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenue before this Hon'ble Court and set him liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.Deepan Uday For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the mother of Muniappan Son of Palaniappan, aged about 32, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No. 29/Goonda/2019/C1 dated 08.11.2019, 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 Additional Public Prosecutor 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 Additional Public Prosecutor 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 Additional Public Prosecutor, 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 08.11.2019. The petitioner made a representation on 28.11.2019. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 06.12.2019. The remarks were duly received on 28.01.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 29.01.2020.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an inordinate delay of 52 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 22 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 30 days in submitting the remarks.

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 30 days in submitting the remarks, which caused delay 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. 29/Goonda/2019/C1 dated 08.11.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Muniappan Son of Palaniappan, aged about 32, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar raa/mmi/ssm To 1.The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Office of District Collector Office and District Magistrate, Erode District.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P. No. 2769 of 2019 MR(CO) RMP(24/07/2020)