A. Vimala v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.07.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR H.C.P.(MD) No.81 of 2017 A.Vimala ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home, (Prohibition and Excise Department), Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector / District Magistrate, Collectorate, Kanyakumari @ Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the Detention Order in P.D.No.01/2017, dated 04.01.2017, passed by the Respondent No.2 on Petitioner's husband namely Aathilingam (38/17), S/o. Yesuvadiyan @ Panjupalam has been detained and branded as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu prevention of Dangerous activities of Boot-leggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand offenders, Sexual offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 and confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District, and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner :

Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents :

Mr.T.Mohan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Aathilingam, son of Yesuvadiyan @ Panjupalam, Male, aged about 38 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.01/2017, dated 04.01.2017, 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 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 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 11.01.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 13.01.2017. The remarks were duly received on 01.02.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 04.02.2017.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 19 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 8 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks.

7. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 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.

8. In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government, reported in 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, 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.

10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 19 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in P.D.No.01/2017, dated 04.01.2017, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Aathilingam, son of Yesuvadiyan @ Panjupalam, Male, aged about 34 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S.) To:

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, (Prohibition and Excise Department), Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector / District Magistrate, Collectorate, Kanyakumari @ Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli District. 4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order), Fort saint George,Chennai - 600 009. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

+1cc to M/S.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate SR.No.65217 am/sss MAS/KP/SAR1:20.07.2017:3P-7C H.C.P.(MD) No.81 of 2017 12.07.2017