Velammal v. The Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.02.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU H.C.P(MD)No.1259 of 2016 Velammal : Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort.St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.
3.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Trichy.-08 : 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 relating to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Detention order No.21/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 08.08.2016 branding the Detenue as Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers 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 of 1982) read with order issued by the Government in G.O(D) NO.131 Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 18.04.2015 under Sub section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu - Sahayamary, aged 31 years, W/o.Shankar, daughter-inlaw of the petitioner, who is confined in the third respondent's Special Prison for Women, Trichy, before this Court and set her at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance For Respondents : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran Additional Public Prosecutor.
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J.] The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the detenu - Sahayamary, aged 31 years, W/o.Shankar. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention order No.21/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 08.08.2016, holding her 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 08.08.2016. The petitioner made a representation dated 29.08.2016. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 02.09.2016. The remarks were duly received on 09.09.2016. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 13.10.2016.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 20 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 20 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 Detention order No.21/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 08.08.2016, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Sahayamary, aged 31 years, W/o.Shankar, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if she is not required for detention in connection with any other case.
12. In the upshot, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar NB To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort.St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.
3.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Trichy.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5 The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort St. George, Chennai- 9 +1cc to Mr.J.Lawrance,Advocate Sr.No. 8791 JAM/27.02.17 /MR/ 4p-7c ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.1259 of 2016 Dated:16.02.2017