Velayutham v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Velayutham .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The State rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.
4. The Inspector of Police, Bodinayakkanur Town Police Station, Theni District.
.. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of detention made in Detention Order No.19/2022, dated 26.03.2022 on the file of the District collector and District Magistrate, Theni District, the second respondent herein branding the petitioner's son/ detenu by name Thirumurugan, son of Velayutham, aged about 25 years, as "Goonda" who is now confined in Central Prison, Madurai and quash the impugned order of detention and set him at liberty by producing before this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Thirumurugan, son of Velayutham, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.19/2022, dated 26.03.2022 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 learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigation was completed and final report was filed and it was taken on file by the Mahila Court, Theni, in S.C.No.72 of 2022.
6. The Detention Order in question was passed on 26.03.2022. The petitioner made a representation dated 06.04.2022. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 08.04.2022. The remarks were duly received on 16.05.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 19.05.2022.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that remarks were
received on 16.05.2022 and there was a delay of 36 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, 15 days were a Government Holiday and hence, there was inordinate delay of 21 days in considering the representation.
8. 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.
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 would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention.
10. 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.
11. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 21 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.
12. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.19/2022, dated 26.03.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Thirumurugan, son of Velayutham, aged about 25 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.) 30.09.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes rm
Copy to 1.The State rep. by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.
4. The Inspector of Police, Bodinayakkanur Town Police Station, Theni District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
J.NISHA BANU,J.
and N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
rm 30.09.2022