Manimaran v. The Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.08.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI Manimaran ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Rural Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

4.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 records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.24 of 2021 (Goonda) dated 30.12.2021 and set aside the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the detenu Manimaran S/o.Jeyabalan, aged 36 years, now confined in central prison, Madurai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Jothibasu For Respondents :

Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Made by R.THARANI, J.] The petitioner is the detenu viz., Manimaran, aged about 36 years, son of Jeyabalan. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his detention order in Cr.M.P.No.24 of 2021 (Goonda) dated 30.12.2021, 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 his 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 30.12.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 11.01.2022 Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 04.02.2022. The remarks were duly received on 11.02.2022. 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 the remarks were received on 11.02.2022 and there was a delay of 62 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 20 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 42 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 42 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.24 of 2021 dated 30.12.2021, passed by the second

respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Manimaran, aged about 36 years, son of Jeyabalan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

[P.N.P., J.] [R.T., J.] 04.08.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No pkn To:

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

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Rural Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.

P.N.PRAKASH , J.

and R.THARANI , J.

pkn 04.08.2022