Tmt. Prabavathi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:21.06.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED H.C.P.(MD)No.497 of 2018 Prabavathi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. District Collector and District Magistrate, Trichirappalli.

3. The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women Central Prison Trichy.

... Respondents PRAYER: The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records entire relating to the detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No.05/.2018 dated 22.02.2018 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's sister Kalaiselvi, aged 46 years, Wife of Maheshkumar, who is detained in Special Prison for Women, Trichirappali and set her at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Illanchezian For Respondents : Mr.V.Neelakandan, Additional Public Prosecutor.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM,J.) The petitioner is the sister of the detenu herein, viz., Kalaiselvi, aged 46 years, Wife of Maheshkumar. The detenu has been detained by order in Cr.M.P.No.05/.2018 dated 22.02.2018, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 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 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 22.02.2018. The petitioner made a representation dated 27.03.2018. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 11.04.2018. The remarks were duly received on 17.04.2018. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 23.04.2018. 6.It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of three days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority.

7.In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble 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 five 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, [1980 (2) SCC 321], the Hon'ble 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 in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

11. In the result, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in Cr.M.P.No.05/.2018 dated 22.02.2018, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Kalaiselvi, aged 46 years, Wife of Maheshkumar, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if her detention is not required in connection with any other case.

12. In the upshot, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Principal Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. District Collector and District Magistrate, Trichirappalli.

3. The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women Central Prison Trichy.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort.St.George, Chennai - 9.

5. The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1CC to Mr.V.Illanchezian, Advocate, SR.No. 69172 H.C.P.(MD)No.497 of 2018 21.06.2018 DAS/RJ2 ES/SKN/RSK/SAR 4/04.07.2018/3P/7C