Mani v. The Principal Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI H.C.P.(MD) No.639 of 2021 Mani ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Prohibition and Excise) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range and The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, (Full Additional Charge) Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
...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 in No.10/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 25.11.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent on the petitioner's son namely, Paldurai, S/o Mani, aged 24 years has been detained and branded as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offender, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu) Act 14/1982 and confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District and set aside the same and set the detenu at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu Government 1/4
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.] The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, namely, Paldurai, male, aged about 24 years, S/o Mani, who has been branded as "Goonda" by the second respondent in Detention Order No.10/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 25.11.2020 as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2.Though several grounds have been raised challenging the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent, dated 25.11.2020, Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, 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.S.Ravi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State 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 25.11.2020. Aggrieved over the same, a representation dated Nil has been sent to the first respondent and the same was received on 11.03.2021 and on the same day, remarks were called for, but the same was received on 22.03.2021. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 23.03.2021. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 12.04.2021 and thereafter, the detenu's representation was rejected on 16.04.2021. It is seen that there was delay of 10 days between 11.03.2021 and 22.03.2021 and 19 days between 23.03.2021 and 12.04.2021. It is also seen that there are 14 Government holidays and after excluding the same, there is a delay of 15 days in considering the representation of the detenu. 6.In the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another 2/4
(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 15 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 the decision of the Honourable Apex Court referred supra. 8.In fine, the order of detention passed by the second respondent made in No.10/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 25.11.2020 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Paldurai, male, aged about 24 years, S/o Mani, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai 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 II) // True Copy // / /2021 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 Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Prohibition and Excise) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range and The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, (Full Additional Charge) Tirunelveli.
3/4
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai.
5.The Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu Government, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
H.C.P.(MD) No.639 of 2021 14.07.2021 MGJ(02.08.2021) 4P 6C 4/4