V.Malaiyammal v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.03.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN V.Malaiyammal ... Petitioner -vs1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Magistrate/District Collector, O/o District Collector, Theni District, Theni.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records connection with the Detention Order No.24/2020 dated 19.06.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent on the petitioner's son namely Marimuthu (23/20) son of Velavar, Gandhinagar, Anumar Kovil Street, Vadakarai, Periyakulam, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District, has been detained and branded as "Sexual Offender" under Section 3

(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, SlumGrabbers and Video Pirates Act - 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with order issued by the Government in G.O(D)No.130, Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 15.04.2020 confined at Central Prison, Madurai to set aside the same and to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Maran For Respondents :

Mr.K.Dinesh Babu Additional Public Prosecutor 1/4

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.] The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, namely, Marimuthu, Son of Velavar, Male aged about 23 years, who has been branded as "Sexual Offender" by the second respondent in Detention Order No.24/2020 dated 19.06.2020, as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2.Though several grounds have been raised challenging the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent, dated 19.06.2020, Mr.M.Maran, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated and there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner and on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

3.Per contra, Mr.K.Dinesh Babu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would argue that the detaining authority, namely, the second respondent herein, after being satisfied with the materials produced by the sponsoring authority, has passed the detention order only to prevent the detenu from indulging in similar offence in future, which would prejudice to the maintenance of the public order. He would further state that the delay, if any, in considering the representation would not cause any prejudice to the detenu and there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order of detention passed by the second respondent. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.

4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on records.

5.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the detenu was detained by the order of the second respondent dated 19.06.2020. Aggrieved over the same, a representation dated 15.07.2020 has been sent to the first respondent and the same was received on 21.07.2020 and on 22.07.2020, remarks were called for, but the same were received on 16.10.2020. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 16.10.2020. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 04.11.2020 and thereafter, the detenu's representation was rejected on 06.11.2020. It is seen that there was delay of 85 days between 22.07.2020 and 16.10.2020. It is also seen that there are 15 Government holidays and after excluding the same, there is a delay of 70 days in considering the representation of the detenu. 6.In the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another (1999 (1) SCC 417) the Honourable Apex Court 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 any indifference or lapse in considering the 2/4

representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner.

7. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay of 70 days in considering the representation of the detenu. 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. 8.In fine, the order of detention passed by the second respondent, in Detention Order No.24/2020 dated 19.06.2020 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Marimuthu, son of Velavar, aged about 23 years, now detained at Madurai Central Prison is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) skn 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, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Joint Secretary, Public(Law and Order)Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

3.The District Magistrate/District Collector, O/o District Collector, Theni District, Theni.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, 3/4

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, 26.02.2021 VR(CO) KK(18.03.2021) 4P 6C 4/4