Munees @ Muneeswaran, v. The Additional Chief Secretary

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.06.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED H.C.P.(MD)No.604 of 2018 Munees @ Muneeswaran ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai-625 020.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.

... Respondents PRAYER: The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the second respondent in No.B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.04/2018 dated 19.04.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Munees @ Muneeswaran, son of Thangaraj, aged about 27 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.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM,J.) The petitioner is the detenu herein, viz., Munees @ Muneeswaran, son of Thangaraj. The detenu has been detained by order in No.B.C.D.F.G.I.S. S.S.V.No.04/2018 dated 19.04.2018, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order isunder 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 19.04.2018. The petitioner made a representation dated 23.04.2018. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 25.04.2018. The remarks were duly received on 08.05.2018. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 15.05.2018. 6.It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and thereafter, there was again a delay of 5 days in considering the representation.

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 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, [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 his proceedings in No.B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.04/2018 dated 19.04.2018 , is quashed. The detenu, namely, Munees @ Muneeswaran, son of Thangaraj, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.

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

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai-625 020.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.

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

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

NBJ/RMK TE/SB/SAR-4 : 10/07/2018 : 3P/6C H.C.P.(MD)No.604 of 2018 20.06.2018