Boopathy v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.06.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.GOKULDAS H.C.P(MD)No.272 of 2016 Boopathy : Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department (Home), Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichirappalli.
: Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detenue's detention order passed by the 2nd respondent detention Cr.M.P.No.02/2016, dated 06.02.2016 and set aside the same and produce the detenue Ashokraj, Son of Tamilselvan aged about 25 years now detained at Central Prison, Trichirappalli before this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.K.Arulkumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor.
O R D E R
*********** [Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the mother of the detenu - Ashokraj, who is under detention, pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent dated 06.02.2016, in Cr.M.P.No.02/2016, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drugoffenders, 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 the order issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.16, Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.01.2016, under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, branding him as "Goonda". 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 06.02.2016. The petitioner made a representation on 23.02.2016. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 29.02.2016. The remarks were duly received on 04.04.2016. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 18.05.2016.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 44 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and thereafter, there was again a delay of 28 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 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.
9. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 44 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 28 days in considering the representation and therefore. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
10. In the result, the impugned Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in Cr.M.No.02/2016, dated 06.02.2016, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Ashokraj, S/o.Tamilselvan, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.
11. In the upshot, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar jikr To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department (Home), Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichirappalli.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort saint George, Chennai-9.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1CC to Mr.M.K.Arul Kumar, Advocate Sr.No.30654 GJM/SK/SKN/23.6.16-3p-7c Order made in H.C.P(MD)No.272 of 2016 Dated: 15.06.2016