C.Kaliya Murthy v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on :07.04.2021 Pronounced on :26.04.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI C.Kaliya Murthy ... Petitioner -vs1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort, St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent in D.O.No.43/2020, dated 07.07.2020 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue namely, Suresh @ Kulithalai Suresh, S/o Alaguraja Perumal, aged about 46 years from the District Jail Virudhunagar (now detained at Central Prison, Madurai) before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.V.K.Rajendran For Respondents :

Mr.V.Neelakandan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.] The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the Nephew of the 1/4

detenu, namely, Suresh @ Kulithalai Suresh, son of Alaguraja Perumal, Male aged about 46 years, who has been branded as "Goonda" by the second respondent in Detention Order No.43/2020 dated 07.07.2020, as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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 07.07.2020, Mr.V.K.Rajendran, 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.V.Neelakandan, 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 07.07.2020. Aggrieved over the same, a representation dated 25.07.2020 has been sent to the first respondent and the same was received on 30.07.2020 and on the same day, remarks were called for and the same were received on 24.08.2020. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 24.08.2020. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 03.09.2020 and thereafter, the detenu's representation was rejected on 04.09.2020. It is seen that there was delay of 24 days between 30.07.2020 and 24.08.2020. It is also seen that there are 9 Government holidays and after excluding the same, there is a delay of 15 days in considering the representation of the detenu. 6.In the case of Rajammal vs.

of the prisoner.

7. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay of 15 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.43/2020 dated 07.07.2020 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu, Suresh @ Kulithalai Suresh, Male, aged 46 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(P&A) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 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 & Excise Department, Fort, St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai District.

4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.

3/4

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.V.K.RAJENDRAN, Advocate ( SR-17813[F] dated 28/04/2021 ) Order made in 26.04.2021 AS(25.05.2021) 4P 7C 4/4