Maheswari v. The Principal Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.10.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI Maheswari : Petitioner/Wife of the detenue -vs1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.
4. The Inspector of Police, K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas to call for the records relating to the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Detention Order No.78/BCDFGISSV/2019 dated 18.10.2019 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu, Kodeeswaramuthu @ Kumar, Son of Pandian aged about 31 years, before this Court and set him at liberty now detained at Central Prison, Madurai.
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Mahendrapathy For Respondents :
Mr.K.Dinesh Babu 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, Kodeeswaramuthu @ Kumar Son of Pandian, Male, aged about 31 years, who has been branded as "Goonda" by the second respondent in Detention Order No.78/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 18.10.2019, as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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 18.10.2019, Mr.S.Mahendrapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner would 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.K.Dinesh Babu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would argue that the detaining authority, namely, the second respondent herein, after being satisfied with the cogent 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 18.10.2019. Aggrieved over the same, a representation dated 21.11.2019 has been sent to the first respondent and the same was received on 25.11.2019 and on the same day, remarks were called for and on 28.11.2019, remarks were received. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 28.11.2019. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 14.12.2019 and thereafter, the detenu's representation was rejected on 16.12.2019. It is seen that there was delay of 16 days between 28.11.2019 and 16.12.2019. It is also seen that there are 4 Government holidays and after excluding the same, there is a delay of 12 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 nay 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 12 days in considering the representation of the detenu. Hence, in our considered view, the detention order is 2/3
liable to be set aside solely on the ground of delay by following the decision of the Honourable Apex Court referred supra.
8. In fine, the order of detention passed by the second respondent, in Detention Order No.78/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 18.10.2019 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Kodeeswaramuthu @ Kumar, Son of Pandian, aged about 31 years, now detained at Central Prison, Madurai is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) skn 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, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law and Order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
08.10.2020 SSS(CO) CS(03.11.2020) 3P 6C 3/3