Selvakumar v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU H.C.P.(MD) No.525 of 2021 Selvakumar ... Petitioner/detenu -vs1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
... 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 entire records, connected with the detention order passed in Detention Order No.09/2021, dated 04.03.2021 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu by namely, Selvakumar, aged about 31 years, S/o. Chinnasamy, now detained at the Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the detenu, namely Selvakumar, S/o. Sivakumar, aged 31 years, challenging the 1/4
detention order in No.09/2021, dated 04.03.2021 passed by the second respondent, branding him as "Drug Offender" as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
2. Mr.N.Pragalathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the detenu has not filed any bail petition in the remanded case. However, the Detaining Authority, to arrive at the subjective satisfaction, has stated that in a similar case, bail was granted to some other person. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when no bail petition has been filed by the detenu in the remanded case, the subjective satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority is without any basis and there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail petition before the appropriate Court. Further, he would submit that the similar case relied on by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the case of the detenu and moreover, the arrest of the detenu was also not properly intimated to his relatives.
3. Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, on instructions, 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 the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5. Even though the learned counsel for 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.
6. 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 18.03.2021 and it was received on 25.03.2021. Remarks were called for on 29.03.2021 and it was received on 11.05.2021. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 12.05.2021. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 15.05.2021 and the representation came to be rejected on 07.06.2021. It is seen that in between 29.03.2021 and 11.05.2021, there was a delay of 26 days, after excluding the Government Holidays of 16 2/4
days, in considering the petitioner's representation.
7. 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.
8. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the delay of 26 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.
9. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order in No.09/2021, dated 04.03.2021, passed by the second respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Selvakumar, son of Chinnasamy, aged about 31 years, who is now detained at Central Prison, Madurai, is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) akv 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.
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
3/4
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order), Fort saint George, Chennai-600 009.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
H.C.P.(MD) No.525 of 2021 DATED : 27.09.2021 RD(20.10.2021) 4P 6C 4/4