Issakki Ammal v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.08.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA Isakki Ammal ... Petitioner -vs1.The State Rep by, The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Superintendent of Prison,

District Jail, Perurani, Thoothukudi District.

5.The Inspector of Police, Munneerpallam Police Station, ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order issued by the second respondent in his proceedings in Detention Order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.3/22 dated 06.01.2022 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda at the Central Prison, Palaymkottai and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the Detenu namely Selvasankar @ Kosusankar S/o.Chellappa, Male, aged about 21 years, who is, now detained in District Jail, Perurani, Thoothukudi District, before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.A.Robinson For Respondents :

Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Selvasankar @ Kosusankar, aged about 21 years, son of Chellappa. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his detention order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.3 of 2022 dated

06.01.2022, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing 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 strongly 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 06.01.2022. The petitioner made a representation on 27.01.2022. Thereafter, remarks were duly received on 21.03.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 23.05.2022.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 59 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 21 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was a delay of 38 days in considering the representation.

7. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (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 (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 38 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department. 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 in M.H.S.Confdl.No.3 of 2022 dated 06.01.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Selvasankar @ Kosusankar, aged about 21 years, son of Chellappa, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [P.N.P., J.] [R.H., J.] 16.08.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No pkn To:

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

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Superintendent of Prison, District Jail, Perurani, Thoothukudi District.

5.The Inspector of Police, Munneerpallam Police Station,

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

P.N.PRAKASH , J.

and R.HEMALATHA , J.

pkn 16.08.2022