Sumithra v. The Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.08.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P(MD)No.384 of 2015 Sumithra .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, , Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Manikandan @ Parakkai Manikandan @ Manikanda Prabhu, S/o.Dhurai @ Chidambaranathan, aged about 30 years before this court who is now detained in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai in pursuant to the detention order passed by the second respondent in Detention Order P.D.No.09/2015 dated 05.03.2015 to call for the records and quash the same and release the detenu at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar 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 petitioner is the sister-in-law of one Mr.Manikandan @ Parakkai Manikandan @ Manikanda Prabhu. He has been detained as per the order of the second respondent under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982), by order dated 05.03.2015, in P.D.No.09/2015. 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 05.03.2015. As against the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 18.03.2015. The remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 20.03.2015. The remarks were received on 06.04.2015. Thereafter, the Government considered the issue and passed the order rejecting the representation on 20.04.2015. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was delay of nine days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 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 seventeen working 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 P.D.No.09/2015 dated 05.03.2015, is quashed. The detenu, by name, Mr.Manikandan @ Parakkai Manikandan @ Manikanda Prabhu, S/o.Dhurai @ Chidambaranathan, aged about 30 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 pjl/gcg To
1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, , Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Playamkottai.
(In duplicate to communicate the deetenu) 4.The Joint Secratry to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St., George, Chennai- 9. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar,Advocate SR No.46196 ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.384 of 2015 12.08.2015 rg.18.08.2015 3p/8c