Saroja v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Saroja .. Petitioner Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector / District Magistrate, Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.
.. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent in Detention Order in C.O.C.No.25/2022, dated 25.08.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Sarathkumar, son of Maruthamuthu, Male, aged about 27 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Joel Paul Antony For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Sarathkumar, son of Maruthamuthu, aged about 27 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.O.C.No.25/2022, dated 25.08.2022, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of 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 by filing his counter. 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 learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigation was completed and final report was filed and it was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valangaiman, in P.R.C.No.2 of 2023 and it was posted on 27.07.2023 for committal.
6. The Detention Order in question was passed on 25.08.2022. The petitioner made a representation dated 04.09.2022. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 13.09.2022. The remarks were duly received on -Nil-. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 17.09.2022.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on -Nil- and there was a delay of 6 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, 1 day were Government Holidays and hence, there was inordinate delay of 5 days in considering the representation.
8. 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.
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, 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.
11. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 5 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.
12. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.O.C.No.25/2022, dated 25.08.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,Sarathkumar, son of Maruthamuthu, aged about 27 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. (M.S.R., J.) (M.N.K., J.) 10.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Internet : Yes rm/rr
Copy to 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector / District Magistrate, Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
M.S.RAMESH,J.
and M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
rm/rr 10.07.2023