M.Pappa, v. The Secretary To Government,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.07.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR H.C.P(MD)No.211 of 2017 M.Pappa : Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector/The District Magistrate, Collectorate, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
: Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with detention order of the 2nd respondent in his detention order P.D.No.4/2017, dated 05.01.2017 signed on 06.01.2017 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of detenue/my son namely Suresh @ Katta Suresh @ Suresh Kumar son of Murugesan aged about 27 years detained in Central Jail, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forth with.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Manimaran For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor.
O R D E R
*********** [Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH , J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu - Suresh @ Katta Suresh @ Suresh Kumar, aged about 27 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.04/2017, dated 05.01.2017, 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 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 05.01.2017. The petitioner made a representation dated 28.01.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 02.02.2017. The remarks were duly received on 14.02.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 28.02.2017.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and thereafter, there was again a delay of 8 days in considering the representation.
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 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 8 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
11. In the result, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in P.D.No.04/2017, dated 05.01.2017, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Suresh @ Katta Suresh @ Suresh Kumar, 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(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector/The District Magistrate, Collectorate, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Superintendent , Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort Saint George, Chennai-9.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+One cc to Mr.Manimaran, Advocate, SR.No.63378 jikr RL/7C/3P/KP/SAR1/17/7/2017 ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.211 of 2017 Dated:04.07.2017