Between v. The Commissioner Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.08.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P(MD)No. 468 of 2015 Alamelu Ammal .. Petitioner Vs.

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

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

.. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the detention order passed dated 14.11.2014 in No.62/BCDFGISSSV/2014 passed by the 1st respondent herein branding her as immoral Traffic offender and direct the respondent to produce the detenue viz. Tmt.Shanthi @ Rani, aged 37 years, W/o. Kannan, now detained at Special Prison for Women, Trichy, before this Court and to set her at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.J.Chakkarvarthy For M/s.Eddy and Emboss Law Firm 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 mother of one Shanthi @ Rani. The detenue has been detained as per the order of the first respondent under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding her as "Immoral traffic Offender".

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 14.11.2014. As against the same, the petitioner made a representation. The remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 24.12.2014. The remarks were received on 31.12.2014 for the third representation. Further, the Government considered the issue and passed the order rejecting the representation after the delay of 9 days for the first representation. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was delay of four days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority for the third representation, and there was delay of nine days on the part of the Government in considering the first representation.

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 thirteen 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 first respondent, in his proceedings in D.No.62/2014, dated 14.11.2014, is quashed. The detenu, by name, Shanthi @ Rani, W/o. Kannan, aged about 37 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if she is not required for detention in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

2. The Joint Secretary to Govt.of Tamilnadu, Public (Law & Order)Dept., Fort.St.George,Chennai - 9.

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

4. The District Collector, Madurai District.

5.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Trichy District.

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

+1cc to M/s.Eddy & Embbass,Advocate SR.No.47353 ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.468 of 2015 18.08.2015 PJL/RR PA/AMF/SAR-I/25.08.2015/3P/8C