Prema v. The Secretary To Government,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.03.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN H.C.P.(MD) No. 1295 of 2016 Prema ... Petitioner -vs1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police Madurai City, Madurai 3.The Superintendent of Prison Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the second respondent, in No.59/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 20.09.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, by name, Karuppu @ Kamal Karuppu, son of Paneerselvam, aged about 28 years, detained in Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents :

Mr.C.Ramesh, Addl. Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Karuppu @ Kamal Karuppu, son of Paneerselvam, aged about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.59/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 20.09.2016, 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 20.09.2016. The petitioner made a representation on 21.09.2016. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 27.09.2016. The remarks were duly received on 30.09.2016. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 13.10.2016.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 13 days in considering the representation, of which 06 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 07 days in considering the representation.

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 07 days in considering the representation. 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 No.59/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 20.09.2016, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Karuppu @ Kamal Karuppu, son of Paneerselvam, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To:

1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.

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

5.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai-9 krk RL/6C/3P/MR/SAR2/10.4.2017 H.C.P.(MD) No.1295 of 2016 23.03.2017