Suguna v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH H.C.P.(MD)No.316 of 2022 Suguna ... Petitioner /Wife of the Detenue Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur District, Karur.
3.The Superintendent, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy.
...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 Cr.M.P.No.04/2022 dated 04.02.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner husband's body or person by name Girinathan, S/o.Rajendran,
aged about 44 years, detained as a 'Goonda' and lodged in Trichy Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Girinathan, S/o.Rajendran, aged about 44 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.04/2022 dated 04.02.2022 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 by filing counter. 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 04.02.2022. The petitioner made a representation dated 17.02.2022. Thereafter, remarks were
called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 21.02.2022. The remarks were duly received on 23.02.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 21.04.2022.
6.It is the contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 23.02.2022 and there was a delay of 55 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 and hence, there was inordinate delay of 37 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 37 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 Cr.M.P.No.04/2022 dated 04.02.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Girinathan, S/o.Rajendran, aged
about 44 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(J.N.B.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.) 16.09.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes sm
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur District, Karur.
3.The Superintendent, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
sm H.C.P.(MD)No.316 of 2022 16.09.2022