Vasantha v. The Principal Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.08.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA Vasantha ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai, 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 passed in No.01/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 04.01.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e., Rajasekar S/o.Ambalam, aged 21 years, now detained at the central prison, Madurai,Madurai District, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :

Ms.P.Krishnaveni For Respondents :

Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Rajasekar, aged about 21 years, son of Ambalam. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his detention order in No.01/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 04.01.2022, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the 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 strongly 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 04.01.2022. The petitioner made a representation on 08.02.2022. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 10.02.2022. The remarks were duly received on 24.02.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 18.04.2022.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 52 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 18 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was a delay of 34 days in considering the representation.

7. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244), the Honourable 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 Honourable 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 34 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department. 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 in No.01/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 04.01.2022, passed by the

second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Rajasekar, aged about 21 years, son of Ambalam, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

[P.N.P., J.] [R.H., J.] 16.08.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No pkn To:

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai, Madurai District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

P.N.PRAKASH , J.

and R.HEMALATHA , J.

pkn 16.08.2022