L. Anitha v. The Principal Secretary To The

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.07.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.GOKULDAS H.C.P(MD)No.399 of 2016 L.Anitha ... Petitioner Vs.

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

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

3. The Inspector of Police, Cumbum North Police Station, Theni District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Detention Order No.01/2016/C3, dated 04.03.2016 and quash the same and consequently set the detenu Amaravathi, W/o.late.Duraipandi, female, aged 52 years, who is presently confined at Special Prison for Women, Trichy at liberty.

For Petitioner : No appearance (Mr.M.Pitchaimuthu) For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor.

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.] None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the daughter of the detenu - Amaravathi, who is under detention, pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent dated 04.03.2016 in Detention Order No.01/2016/C3, under Section 2(e) 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.222, Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.10.2015, under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, branding him as "Drug Offender".

3. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

4. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, it is mainly averred that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention.

5. 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.

6. The Detention Order in question was passed on 04.03.2016. The petitioner made a representation dated 18.03.2016. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 06.04.2016. The remarks were duly received on 11.04.2016. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 18.05.2016.

7. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 2 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and thereafter, there was again a delay of 23 days in considering the representation.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 2 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 23 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

12. In the result, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in Detention Order No.01/2016/C3, dated 04.03.2016, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Amaravathi, W/o.late.Duraipandi is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if she is not required for detention in connection with any other case.

13. In the upshot, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

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

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

3. The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Trichy.

4. The Inspector of Police, Cumbum North Police Station, Theni District.

5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort St. George, Chennai.

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

PS TE/GSV-PM/: 27/07/2016 : 3P/7C H.C.P(MD)No.399 of 2016 20.07.2016