C. Piramila v. The District Collector And

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.01.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P(MD)No.1483 of 2015 C.Piramila .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

2.The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records from the first respondent in P.D.No.57/2015, dated 29.09.2015, by setting aside the order of detention passed by the first respondent and setting the detenu Kutty @ Chidambaram, aged about 44 years, S/o.Srinivasan, at liberty, now detained in Central Prison, Trichirappalli. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mathavan For Respondents : Mr.A.Ramar Additional Public Prosecutor.

O R D E R

*********** [Order of the Court was made by V.S.RAVI,J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. He has been detained, as per the order of the first respondent, dated 29.09.2015, under Section 2 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as "Drug Offender". Challenging the same, she has come up with 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 carefully.

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 violation of procedural safeguards, which are guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would submit that the representations made by

the petitioner were not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay. The learned counsel has relied on few Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Based on the same, the learned counsel would plead for setting aside the detention order.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this Habeas Corpus Petition. He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score, the impugned detention order need not be interfered with, as, on account of the said delay, 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. We have considered the above submissions.

6. In this case, the Detention Order was passed on 29.09.2015. As against the same, the petitioner made three representations dated 07.10.2015, 10.10.2015 and 15.10.2015 respectively. The remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority 13.10.2015, 14.10.2015 and 20.10.2015 respectively. The remarks were received on 27.10.2015, 27.10.2015 and nil. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was delay of eight working days with regard to the first representation and seven working days with regard to the second representation in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. Thereafter, the Government considered the issue and passed the order rejecting the representations on 07.11.2015, 07.11.2015 and 11.11.2015 respectively. Hence, there was delay of eight working days with regard to the first representation, eight working days with regard to the second representation and five working days with regard to the third representation on the part of the Government in considering the same.

7. Now, the question is as to whether on that score, the impugned order can be quashed.

8. In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the right to life and liberty of a person is protected, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further 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 of the detenu.

9. 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 detention order.

10. 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 detention illegal. This dictum has been followed in several Judgments consistently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.

11. Applying the said dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if we look into the facts of the present case, undoubtedly there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of the above mentioned working days and therefore, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.

12. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and this Court sets aside the Order of Detention dated 29.09.2015, made in No.P.D.No.57/2015, passed by the first respondent/District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District and directs the release of the detenu, by name Kutty @ Chidambaram, aged about 44 years, S/o.Srinivasan, forthwith, if his continued custody is not authorised in specific cases or by any other detention order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

To 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

2.The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009.

3 The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy ( in duplicate to communicate the detenu) 4 The commissioner of Police, Thanjavur.

5 The Joint Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law & order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to M/S.G.Mathavan, Advocate in SR.No. 618 TS/06.01.2016/3P-9C/ GSV-AN /SAR I H.C.P(MD)No.1483 of 2015 Dated: 05.01.2016