Soornambal v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA Soornambal ... Petitioner -vs1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Karur, Karur District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Trichy.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent and made in his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No. 24/2024 dated 30.08.2024, in detaining the detenue under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 under Section 2(f) as a Goonda and quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenue namely Mathan, S/o. Ravi, aged about 19
years, who is detained in Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court. For Petitioner :
Mr.B.Santhanam Rajesh Kumar For Respondents :
Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The son of the petitioner is the detenu viz., Mathan, son of Ravi, aged about 19 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.24/2024 dated 30.08.2024 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, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner,
dated Nil. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 07.09.2024, the same was received by the Government on 16.09.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 09.10.2024. There is a delay of 11 days in Column Nos.6 & 7 of the Proforma in considering the petitioner's representation. The said delay of 11 days in considering the representation remains unexplained and the same vitiates the impugned detention order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order. He further submitted that the coaccused has filed the habeas corpus petition in H.C.P(MD)No.1367 of 2024 and the same has been dismissed by this Court dated 22.04.2025. It is also stated that even if there is any delay in disposal of the representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in this case there is a delay in considering the representation of the petitioner. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the petitioner is dated 07.09.2024, which was received by the Government on 16.09.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 09.10.2024. As per the proforma submitted the by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of 11 days in Column Nos.6 & 7 in considering the representation of the petitioner and we find that the said delay remains unexplained.
6. It is trite law that the representation should be very expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. From the records produced, we find that no acceptable explanation has been offered for the delay of 11 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.
7. In the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajammal's case, it has been held as follows: "It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words "as soon as may be " in clause
(5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest."
8. As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited Rajammal's case, number of days of delay is immaterial and what is to be considered is whether the delay caused has been properly explained by the authorities concerned. But, in the instant case, the inordinate delay of 11 days has not been properly explained.
9. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is a history of insistence on procedural safeguards. The expression 'as soon as may be', in Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India clearly shows the concern of the makers of the Constitution that the representation made on behalf of the detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.
10. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of delay on the part of the Government in disposing of the representation of the petitioner.
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.24/2024 dated 30.08.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Mathan, aged about 19 years, son of Ravi, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
NCC : Yes / No [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] Index : Yes / No 11.06.2025 Internet : Yes / No am
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Karur, Karur District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Trichy.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND R.POORNIMA , J.
am 11.06.2025