Karuppaiah v. State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.12.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE NISHA BANU H.C.P(MD)No.827 of 2016 Karuppaiah : Petitioner Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by, 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, Madurai City, Madurai.
3.The Superintendent, District Prison and Borstal School, Pudukkottai.
: 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, connected with the detention order in No.40/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 23.06.2016, on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son, namely, Achan @ Achanathan, S/o.Karuppaiah, male, aged about 20 years, who is detained in District Prison and Borstal Schools, Pudukkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Additional Public Prosecutor.
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the father of the detenu - Achan @ Achanathan, who is under detention, pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent dated 23.06.2016, in
40/BCDFGISSSV/2016, under Section 2(f) of 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 the order issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.67, Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.04.2016, 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 23.06.2016. The petitioner made a representation dated 29.06.2016. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 04.07.2016. The remarks were duly received on 08.07.2016. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 21.07.2016.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of nine days in considering the representation and passing orders on the same, which vitiates the impugned order of detention.
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 of nine days in considering the representation of the petitioner. 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 40/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 23.06.2016, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Achan @ Achanathan, S/o.Karuppaiah, male, aged about 20 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.
12. In the upshot, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CRL SIDE) /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, Madurai City, Madurai.
3.The Superintendent, District Prison and Borstal School, Pudukkottai.
4 The Joint Secretary to Government Public(L&O) Department, Fort St.Geroge, Chennai 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu,Advocate Sr.No. 79168 JAM/21.12.16/SS 3 /SAR 1/3p-7c ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.827 of 2016 Dated: 05.12.2016