Subramani v. The Commissioner Of Police

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.366 of 2015 Subramani .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, St.George Fort, Chennai-9.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records, relating to the detention order passed by the 1st Respondent in Detention Order No.7/B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V/2015 dated 21.1.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu namely, S.Venkatesh Raja aged about 24 years, the petitioner's son and set him at liberty.

For petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran For respondents : Mr. T.Mohan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by V.S.RAVI,J] The son of the petitioner has been detained as "Goonda" as per the order of the first respondent under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in No.7/B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V/2015 dated 21.1.2015. 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 21.1.2015. As against the same, the petitioner made a representation on 21.2.2015. The remarks were received by the Detaining Authority on 26.2.2015. Thereafter, the Government considered the issue and passed the order rejecting the representation on 13.3.2015. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was no delay in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, however, there was delay of eight 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 eight 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 first respondent, in his proceedings in No.7/B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V/2015 dated 21.1.2015, is quashed. The detenu, by name, S.Venkatesh Raja son of Subramani, aged about 24 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case. sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar vks

To:

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

2.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, St.George Fort, Chennai-9.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

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

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

+one cc to Mr.R.Maheswaran, Advocate in SR.No.45050 ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.366 of 2015 07.08.2015 CSL/NGM-SS/SAR-II/28.08.2015 3P/7C