P.Ponnammal v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN P.Ponnammal ... Petitioner/ Wife of Detenue -vs1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort, St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent in Detention Order in Cr.M.P.No.78/2020, dated 06.11.2020, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely, Prabhu, S/o.Thangam, aged 22 years, now detained at Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondents :
Mr.S.Ravi Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu Government
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Prabhu, son of Thangam, aged about 22 years, who has been branded as ''Goonda'' by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.78/2020, dated 06.11.2020, as contemplated under Section 2 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
2.Though several grounds have been raised challenging the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent, dated 06.11.2020, Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India has been 1/3
violated and there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner and on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside. 3.Per contra, Mr.S.Ravi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State would argue that the detaining authority, namely, the second respondent herein, after being satisfied with the materials produced by the sponsoring authority, has passed the detention order only to prevent the detenu from indulging in similar offence in future, which would prejudice to the maintenance of the public order. He would further state that the delay, if any, in considering the representation would not cause any prejudice to the detenu and there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order of detention passed by the second respondent. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.
4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
5.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the detenu was detained by the order of the second respondent dated 06.11.2020. Aggrieved over the same, representations dated 21.11.2020, have been sent to the respondents 1 and 2 and the same were received on 27.11.2020 and 11.12.2020 respectively, and on the same day, remarks were called for and remarks were received on 17.12.2020. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 17.12.2020. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 09.01.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner's representations were rejected on 11.01.2021. It is seen that there was delay of 23 days between 17.12.2020 and 09.01.2021. It is also seen that there are 7 Government holidays and after excluding the same, there is a delay of 16 days in considering the representations of the petitioner.
6.In the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another (1999 (1) SCC 417) the Honourable Apex Court observed and held that it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposal of the representation and if any delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner.
7.In the case on hand, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay of 16 days in considering the representations of the petitioner. Hence, in our considered view, the detention order is liable to be set aside solely on the ground of delay by following the decision of the Honourable Apex Court referred supra. 8.In fine, the order of detention passed by the second respondent, in Cr.M.P. No.78/2020, dated 06.11.2020 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu, 2/3
namely, Prabhu, son of Thangam, aged about 22 years, now detained at Central Prison, Trichy, is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) smn2 Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort, St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli District.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law and order), Fort St.George, Chennai.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
04.06.2021 KK(21.06.2021) 3P 6C 3/3