Kalaiyarasi v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Kalaiyarasi ... Petitioner -vs1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Special Prison for Women, Madurai District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in Detention Order No.05/2021 dated 11.01.2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Kalaiyarasi, wife of Muthukalai, aged about 29 years, now detained as "Goonda"at Madurai Special Prison for Women before this Court and set her at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents :
Mr.S.Ravi Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu Government
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.] The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the detenue, namely, Kalaiyarasi, female, aged about 29 years, wife of Muthukalai, who has been branded as "Goonda" by the second respondent in Detention Order No.05/2021 dated 11.01.2021 as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2.Though several grounds have been raised challenging the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent, dated 1/3
11.01.2021, Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated and there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner and on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
3.Per contra, Mr.S.Ravi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State would argue that the detaining authority, namely, the second respondent herein, after being satisfied with the materials produced by the sponsoring authority, has passed the detention order only to prevent the detenue from indulging in similar offence in future, which would prejudice to the maintenance of the public order. He would further state that the delay, if any, in considering the representation would not cause any prejudice to the detenue and there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order of detention passed by the second respondent. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.
4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on records.
5.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the detenue was detained by the order of the second respondent dated 11.01.2021. Aggrieved over the same, a representation dated 16.01.2021 has been sent to the first respondent and the same was received on 21.01.2021 and on the same day, remarks were called for and the same was received on 03.02.2021. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 03.02.2021. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 27.02.2021 and thereafter, the detenue's representation was rejected on 02.03.2021. It is seen that there was delay of 23 days between 03.02.2021 and 27.02.2021. It is also seen that there are 6 Government holidays and after excluding the same, there is a delay of 17 days in considering the representation of the detenue.
6.In the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another (1999 (1) SCC 417) the Honourable Apex Court observed and held that it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposal of the representation and if any delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner.
7. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay of 17 days in considering the representation of the detenue. Hence, in our considered view, the detention order is liable to be set aside solely on the ground of delay by following the decision of the Honourable Apex Court referred supra. 2/3
8.In fine, the order of detention passed by the second respondent, in Detention Order No.05/2021 dated 11.01.2021 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenue, namely, Kalaiyarasi, female, aged about 29 years, wife of Muthukalai, now detained at Madurai Special Prison for Women is directed to be released forthwith unless her presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (W) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) skn Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Special Prison for Women, Madurai District.
4.The Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu Government, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
16.07.2021 CN(11.08.2021) 3P 5C 3/3