Thiravidakuyil v. The Principal Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.09.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI Thiravidakuyil ... Petitioner/Wife of the Detenu vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and the District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.
... Respondents PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is 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 second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.2 of 2020, dated 06.02.2020 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Murugan @ Meesai Murugan, son of Kalimuthu Naiker, aged about 44 years, now detained at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents :
Mr.V.Neelakandan Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J.] The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Murugan @ Meesai Murugan, S/o. Kalimuthu Naiker, aged about 44 years, who has been branded as "Sand Offender" by the second respondent in Detention Order No.02/2020, dated 06.02.2020 as contemplated under Section 3(1) 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 06.02.2020, Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly 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.V.Neelakandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 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 19.03.2020. Aggrieved over the same, a representation dated 06.02.2020 has been sent to the first respondent and the same was received on 27.02.2020 and on 28.02.2020, remarks were called for and the remarks were received on 18.05.2020. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 18.05.2020. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 25.05.2020 and thereafter, the detenu's representation was rejected on 26.05.2020. It is seen that there was delay of 80 days between 28.02.2020 and 18.05.2020. It is also seen that there are 30 Government holidays and after excluding the same, there is a delay of 50 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 50 days in considering the representation of the detenu. Hence, in our considered view, the detention order is liable to be set aside solely on the ground of delay by following 2/3
the decision of the Honourable Apex Court referred supra.
8. In fine, the order of detention passed by the second respondent, in D.O.No.2/2020 dated 06.02.2020, is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Murugan @ Meesai Murugan, S/o. Kalimuthu Naiker, aged about 44 years, now detained at Madurai Central Prison is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) akv 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 Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and the District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order), Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
03.09.2020 AP(14/09/2020) 3 P 6C 3/3