Kaliyammal 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 Kaliyammal ... Petitioner -vs1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records pertaining to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in Detention Order No.75/2020 dated 03.12.2020 and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son namely, Sethupathy, S/o Pandiyan, Male, aged about 33 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Vinayak 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 mother of the detenu, namely, Sethupathy, male, aged about 33 years, son of Pandiyan, who has been branded as "Goonda" by the second respondent in Detention Order No.75/2020 dated 03.12.2020 as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 1/3
2.Though several grounds have been raised challenging the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent, dated 03.12.2020, Mr.S.Vinayak. 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 detenu 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 detenu 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 detenu was detained by the order of the second respondent dated 03.12.2020. Aggrieved over the same, a representation dated 18.01.2021 has been sent to the first respondent and the same was received on 29.01.2021 and on the same day, remarks were called for and the same was received on 08.02.2021. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 08.02.2021. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 12.04.2021 and thereafter, the detenu's representation was rejected on 19.04.2021. It is seen that there was delay of 62 days between 08.02.2021 and 12.04.2021. It is also seen that there are 18 Government holidays and after excluding the same, there is a delay of 44 days in considering the representation of the detenu.
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 44 days in considering the representation of the 2/3
detenu. 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. 8.In fine, the order of detention passed by the second respondent, in Detention Order No.75/2020 dated 03.12.2020 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Sethupathy, male, aged about 33 years, son of Pandiyan, now detained at Central Prison, Madurai is directed to be released forthwith unless his 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, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District,Theni.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,Madurai.
4.The Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu Government, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.S.VINAYAK, Advocate ( SR-22985[F] dated 16/07/2021 ) 16.07.2021 CN(12.08.2021) 3P 6C 3/3