Rajarajeswari v. The Dt Collector And Dt Magistrate Cuddaloe

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.01.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM H.C.P.No.2281 of 2018 Rajarajeswari W/o.Namadevan @ Urundaiyan ... Petitioner -Vs1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

2.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in C3/D.o/56/2018 on the file of the first respondent, quash the detention order dated 10.09.2018 and direct the production of the detenu Namadevan @ Urundaiyan son of Venugopal presently detained at the Central Prison, Cuddalore, under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.A.M.Rahamath Ali For Respondents:

Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu herein, viz. Namadevan @ Urundaiyan, son of Venugopal, aged 61 years. The detenu has been detained by the first respondent by his order in C3/D.O./56/2018, dated 10.09.2018, holding him to be a "BOOTLEGGER", as contemplated under Section 2(b) of Tamil Nadu

Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. The detenu has come to adverse notice in the following cases:- S.No. Police Station and Crime No.

Section of Law 1.

Kadampuliyur P.S.

Crime No.231/2016 Sec.4(1)(aaa) TNP Act 2.

Panruti P.E.Wing Crime No.753/2016 Sec.4(1)(aaa) & 4(1-A) TNP Act 3.

Kadampuliyur P.S.

Crime No.195/2017 Sec.4(1)(a), 4(1-A) TNP Act 4.

Kadampuliyur P.S Crime No.371/2017 Sec.4(1)(a), 4(1-A) TNP Act 5.

Kadampuliyur P.S Crime No.250/2017 Sec.4(1)(a), 4(1-A) TNP Act 6.

Kadampuliyur P.S Crime No.415/2017 Sec.4(1)(aa), 4(1-A) TNP Act 7.

Panruti P.E. Wing Crime No.39/2018 Sec.4(1)(aaa) & 4(1-A) TNP Act 8.

Panruti P.E. Wing Crime No.66/2018 Sec.4(1)(aaa) & 4(1-A) TNP Act The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Cr.No.329/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur Police Station, for offences u/s 4(1)(aaa) & 4(1-A) TNP Act. The detention order has been passed by first respondent in C3/D.O./56/2018.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The Detention Order in question was passed on 10.09.2018. The petitioner made a representation, dated 01.10.2018 and the same was received on 09.10.2018. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 10.10.2018. The remarks were duly received on 13.11.2018 Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 04.12.2018.

7. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an inordinate delay of 42 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 16 days were Saturday and Sunday and Government Holdiays and hence there was a delay of 26 days in submitting the remarks. Thereafter, there was yet another delay of 20 days in considering the representation, of which 7 days were Saturdays, Sundays and Government Holidays and hence there was yet another delay of 13 days in considering representation.

8. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 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.

9. In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government, reported in 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.

10. 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.

11. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 26 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 13 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

12. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C3/D.O./56/2018, dated 10.09.2018, passed by the first respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely Namadevan @ Urundaiyan, son of Venugopal, aged 61 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kmi/lpp To 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

2.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Cuddalore.

H.C.P.No.2281 of 2018 srg 28/02/2019