Sivagnanam v. The Principal Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.09.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI Sivagnanam ... Petitioner -vs1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Pudukkottai District Pudukkottai 3.The Superintendent Central Prison Tiruchirappalli ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings P.D.O.No.20/2020, dated 02.03.2020 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the person and detenue namely Udaiyar, son of Balakrishnan, aged 37 years (now detained at Central Prison, Trichy), before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar For Respondents: Mr.V.Neelakandan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Udaiyar, son of Balakrishnan, aged 37 years, challenging the detention order in P.D.O.No.20/2020, dated 1/4

02.03.2020, passed by the second respondent, branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

2. Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would argue that even though the petitioner has raised several grounds, he has confined his arguments only to the delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have not been followed in this case and there is unexplained and inordinate delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation, which would vitiate the impugned order of detention.

3. Mr.V.Neelakandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while reiterating the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the detention order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order. It is also stated that even if there is any delay in disposal of the representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. In the instant case, the proforma furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would indicate that as against the impugned detention order, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 21.03.2020 and it was received on 23.04.2020. Remarks were called for on 24.04.2020 and it was received on 21.05.2020. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 23.05.2020. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 01.06.2020 and the representation came to be rejected on the same day i.e.01.06.2020. It is seen that in between 24.04.2020 and 21.05.2020, there was a delay of eighteen days, after excluding the Government Holidays of nine days, in considering the petitioner's representation.

6. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in 1999 (1) SCC 417, wherein the Apex Court has 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.

2/4

7. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the delay of eighteen days in considering the representation of the petitioner has not been properly explained by the respondents. 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 Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order in P.D.O.No.20/2020, dated 02.03.2020, passed by the second respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Udaiyar, son of Balakrishnan, aged 37 years, who is now detained at Central Prison, Trichy, is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) 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.

krk To:

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

3/4

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

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

23.09.2020 NR (07.10.2020) 4P 6C 4/4