Chandra Devi v. The Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.08.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P(MD)No.311 of 2015 Chandra Devi W/o.Rajendran .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, O/o.District Magistrate and District Collector, Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai 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 of the Respondent No.2 in C.M.P.No.1/2015 dated 19.2.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Abishek, son of Rajendran, aged about 27 years, now detained in Madurai Central Prison before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For respondents : Mr. T.Mohan Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
*********** [Order of the Court was made by V.S.RAVI,J] The son of the petitioner has been detained as "Bootlegger" as per the order of the second respondent under Section 2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in C.M.P.No.1/2015 dated 19.2.2015.
Challenging the said order, the petitioner is now before this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and 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 representation made by the petitioner was 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. But, 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 19.2.2015. As against the same, the petitioner made a representation on 6.3.2015. The remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 9.3.2015. The remarks were received by the Detaining Authority on 12.3.2015. Thereafter, the Government considered the issue and passed the order rejecting the representation on 30.3.2015. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was delay of three days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and there was delay of nine days 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/detenue 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 twelve days and therefore, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.
12. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in C.M.P.No.1/2015 dated 19.2.2015, is quashed. The detenu, by name, Abishek, son of Rajendran, aged about 27 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.
vks Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Fort St.George,Chennai-9. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,O/o.District Magistrate and District Collector,Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,Madurai Central Prison,Madurai District. 4.The Joint Secretary to Government Public)Law and Order), Fort.Saint. George,Chennai. 600 009.
5.The Director General of Police, Chennai.
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.311 of 2015 07.08.2015 3P/7C AM/NGM.SS/SAR-II/28.08.2015.