M.Murugeswari v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH H.C.P.(MD)No.541 of 2022 M.Murugeswari ... Petitioner /Wife of the Detenue Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Prohibition and Excise) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Thirunelveli 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 No.5/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 31.01.2022 passed by second respondent on her husband namely, T.Murugesh @ Kutty Pasupathy, S/o.Thanushkodi Murugan, aged 26 years has been detained and branded as
"Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu) Act 14/1982 and confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District and set aside the same and set the detenu at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Singaravel For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., T.Murugesh @ Kutty Pasupathy, S/o.Thanushkodi Murugan, aged 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention order No. 5/BCDFGISSSV/2022, dated 31.01.2022, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. 3.Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, 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.The Detention Order in question was passed on 31.01.2022. The petitioner made a representation dated 12.02.2022. The remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 24.02.2022. The remarks were duly received on 04.03.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 18.04.2022.
6.It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 04.03.2022 and there was a delay of 41 days, in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which, 14 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was inordinate delay of 27 days in considering the representation.
7.In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244), the Honourable Supreme Court has 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 undertaken by the detenu.
8.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 would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention. 9.In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the very detention illegal. 10.In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 27 days in considering the
representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
11.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention order No.5/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 31.01.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,T.Murugesh @ Kutty Pasupathy, S/o.Thanushkodi Murugan, aged 26 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(J.N.B.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.) 16.09.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes sm
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Prohibition and Excise) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Thirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
sm H.C.P.(MD)No.541 of 2022 16.09.2022