R.K. Puvanendran v. The State Rep By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.04.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED H.C.P.(MD)No.366 of 2018 R.K.Puvanendran ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State rep. By The District Magistrate and District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

2. The Additional Chief Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

4. The Inspector of Police, Madukkur Police Station, Thanjavur District.

... Respondents PRAYER: The 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 order of detention passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in P.D.No.1 of 2018 dated 07.01.2018 and set aside the same and direct the respondents 1, 3 and 4 to produce the detenue Ruthraya, aged 31/18, S/o Puvanendran, before this Court now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli and set him liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thirumahilmaran For Respondents : Mr.V.Neelakandan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM,J.) The petitioner is the detenu herein, viz., R.K.Puvanendran, son of Kannaiya Naidu, aged 31 years. The detenu has been detained by order in P.D.No.1 of 2018, dated 07.01.2018, holding

him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order isunder challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 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 07.01.2018. The petitioner made a representation dated 24.01.2018. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 01.02.2018. The remarks were duly received on 15.02.2018. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 09.03.2018. 6.It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of ten days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and thereafter, there was again a delay of fifteen days in considering the representation.

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, [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 in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

11. In the result, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in P.D.No.1 of 2018, dated 07.01.2018, is quashed. The detenu, namely, R.K.Puvanendran, S/o.Kannaiya Naidu, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.

12. In the upshot, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition. sd/ Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

2. The Additional Chief Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

4. The Inspector of Police, Madukkur Police Station, Thanjavur District.

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

6. The Additional Public prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

+1cc to Mr.P.Thirumahilmaran, Advocate in SR.No. 62435 TM/NBJ AE/RSK/SAR1/17.05.2018/3P/8C H.C.P.(MD)No.366 of 2018 19.04.2018