P.Maria Selvi Punitha, v. State Of Tamil Nadu,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.05.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN H.C.P.(MD) No.129 of 2017 P.Maria Selvi Punitha ... Petitioner -vs1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its The Principal Secretary to Govt., Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the Detention Order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Cr.M.P.No.03/2017 dated 04.01.2017 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue, namely, Prabhu @ Vatti Prabhu, S/o.Thangaraj, aged 33 years (now detained at Central Prison, Trichy) before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh Addl. Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Prabhu @ Vatti Prabhu. The detenu has been detained by the 2nd respondent by order in Cr.M.P.No.03/2017 dated 04.01.2017, holding the detenu 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 for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 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 opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition. 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 04.01.2017. The petitioner made a representation on 10.02.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on the same day. The remarks were duly received on 21.03.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 23.03.2017.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 27 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority.
7. In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble 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, [1980
(2) SCC 321], the Hon'ble 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 27 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and therefore, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.
11. In the result, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.03/2017 dated 04.01.2017 is quashed. The detenu, namely, Prabhu @ Vatti Prabhu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.
12. In the upshot, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
AR/ER TE/RSK/SAR-I : 02/06/2017 : 3P/6C H.C.P.(MD) No.129 of 2017 23.05.2017