J.Muthulakshmi v. The Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.06.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.No. 2896 of 2018 J.Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner/Mother of Detenue Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, calling for the records of the detention order dated 10.12.2018 in detention order no. Cr.M.P.No. 24/G/2018/E1, on the file of the second respondent herein, quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of M.R. Alias Mohanram S/o Jagadeesan, Hindu aged about 39 years wh ois now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Purushothaman For Respondents :

Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj Addl.

Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) The petitioner is the mother of M.R. Alias Mohanram S/o Jagadeesan, aged 39 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No. 24/G/2018/E1 dated 10.12.2018, 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 10.12.2018. The petitioner made a representation on 13.12.2018. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 24.12.2018. The remarks were duly received on 08.01.2019. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 18.01.2019.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 15 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 6 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 9 days in submitting the remarks.

7. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244), the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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 9 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority.

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. 24/G/2018/E1 dated 10.12.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, M.R. Alias Mohanram S/o Jagadeesan, aged 39 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar mmi/ssm To 1.The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Coimbatore.

3.The Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

5.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and order) Fort. St. George Chennai 9.

6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1 CC to Mr. Purushothaman, Advocate sr 46073 H.C.P.No. 2896 of 2018 RSI(CO) SP(16/07/2019)