Muthuselvi v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Governement
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :14.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU Muthuselvi ...Petitioner/wife of the detenu -vs1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Exercise Department, State of Tamilnadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents PRAYER : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, or any other writ or direction calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the respondent no.2 in H.S.(M)Confdl.No.38/2021 dated 10.03.2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Vanbabu, S/o. Esakkiyappan, aged about 32 years, now detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Vinoth Bharathi For Respondents :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Standing counsel for the State
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 wife of the detenu, namely, Vanbabu, S/o. Esakkiyappan, aged about 32 years, challenging the detention order in H.S.(M)Confdl.No.38/2021 dated 10.03.2021, passed by the second respondent, branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
1/4
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that in the ground case, arrest information was not properly intimated to the family members of the detenu, which is in violation of the principles laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of D.K.Basu vs. West Bengal. He would further submit that the detenu was arrested on 11.02.2021, but the detaining authority passed the detention order on 10.03.2021 and there is no live link between the date of alleged occurrence and date of detention and the delay of 27 days in passing the detention order has not been explained by the detaining authority.
It is further submitted that several pages in the booklet are in English and the detaining authority did not supply the Tamil version of the said pages and further, several pages of Tamil and English version of the booklet and grounds of detention differs, which caused serious prejudice to the detenu from making effective representation to the higher authorities and there is no cogent materials to arrive at the subjective satisfaction and there is also no material to show that the activities of the detenu is prejudicial to the maintenance of public law and order to brand him as goonda and further, there is a delay in considering the representation.
3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would state that after satisfying with the materials placed by the sponsoring authority, the detaining authority has passed the impugned detention order and therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the same. He would produce the proforma regarding the disposal of the petitioner's representation and would state that even if there is any delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of this petition. 4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.
5.Even though the petitioner has raised the above grounds to quash the impugned detention order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly place arguments on the ground of delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would state 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.Perusal of the proforma produced by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would show that as against the impugned detention order, the petitioner has made a representation to the 1st respondent on 22.04.2021 which was received on 30.04.2021. Remarks on the said representation were called for on 03.05.2021 and it was received on 11.05.2021. The Deputy Secretary concerned has dealt with the representation on 12.05.2021 and the Hon'ble Minister 2/4
concerned has dealt with the representation on 15.05.2021 and finally, the representation came to be rejected on 07.06.2021. It is seen that in between 15.05.2021 and 07.06.2021, there is a delay of 22 days. After excluding the government holidays of 7 days, there is a delay of 15 days in considering the petitioner's representation.
7.At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in 1999 (1) CC 417, wherein, the Apex Court has held that it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposal of the representation of the detenu and if any delay was caused on account of any 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 15 days in considering the representation of the petitioner remains unexplained by the respondents. Hence, in our considered view, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside solely on the ground of delay by following the above decision of the Apex Court. 9.In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order in H.S.(M)Confdl.No.38/2021 dated 10.03.2021, passed by the second respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Vanbabu, S/o. Esakkiyappan, aged about 32 years, who is now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai 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-I) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) PM-PN 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.
3/4
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Exercise Department, State of Tamilnadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort. St.George, Chennai-9 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER MADE IN DATED : 14.09.2021 GC(05.10.2021) 4P 6C 4/4