Kanimozhi v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :30.06.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Kanimozhi ... Petitioner/wife of the detenu -vs1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

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

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

... Respondents PRAYER : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent made in his proceedings in P.D.No.34 of 2020, dated 12.8.2020 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tramil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a GOONDA and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely, Ranjan, son of Moorthi, Male, aged about 29 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.J.Joseph Zinoson For Respondents :

Mr.S.Ravi, Standing Counsel for the State

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Ranjan, son of Moorthi, Male, aged about 29 years challenging the detention order in P.D.No.34 of 2020, dated 12.8.2020 passed by the second respondent, branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

2. Mr.J.Joseph Zinson, learned counsel for the petitioner, would argue that even though the petitioner has raised several 1/3

grounds, he has confined his arguments only to the delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have not been followed in this case and there is unexplained and inordinate delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation, which would vitiate the impugned order of detention.

3. Mr.S.Ravi, learned Standing Counsel for the State,while reiterating the averments contained in the counter filed by the second respondent, had vehemently opposed the Petition by contending that these cases are murder for gain and all the accused have been secured and they have been convicted by the trial Court. He would further submit that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the detention order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order. It is also stated that even if there is any delay in disposal of the representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. In the instant case, the pro-forma furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would indicate that as against the impugned detention order, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 01.09.2020 and it was received on 08.09.2020. Remarks were called for on the same day on 08.09.2020 and it was received on 07.10.2020. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 07.10.2020. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 4.11.2020 and the representation came to be rejected on 6.11.2020. It is seen that in between 7.10.2020 and 6.11.2020, there was a delay of 27 days, after excluding the Government Holidays of 6 days, there was a delay of 21 days in considering the petitioner's representation.

6. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in 1999 (1) SCC 417, wherein, the Apex Court has observed and held that it is for the Authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposal of the representation and if any delay was caused on account of nay indifference or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner.

7. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the delay of 21 days in considering the representation of the petitioner remains unexplained by the respondents. Hence, in our considered view, the detention order is liable to be set aside solely on the ground of 2/3

delay by following the decision of the Honourable Apex Court referred supra.

8. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order in P.D.No.34 of 2020, dated 12.8.2020, passed by the second respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Ranjan, son of Moorthi, aged about 29 years, who is now detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vsn 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 the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

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

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai 30.06.2021 KK(08.07.2021) 3P 5C 3/3