Krishnaveni v. The Principal Secretary To Government Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.04.2022 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Krishnaveni ... Petitioner/ Wife of the Detenue vs.
1)The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2)The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy.
3)The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the detention order in C.No.41/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2021 dated 22.10.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same by setting the detenu namely, Vijayabaskar, S/o.Vaithiyalingam, aged 50 years and set him at liberty now detained at Central Prison, Trichy, Trichy District.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivabalan For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Vijayabaskar, S/o.Vaithiyalingam aged about 50 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.41/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2021 dated 22.10.2021, holding him to be 1/3
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 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 arguments 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 representations made by the petitioner were not considered in time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay with regard to the same.
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 22.10.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 08.11.2021 and the same was received on 11.11.2021. Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary has dealt with the representation on 17.11.2021 and the Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise, has dealt with the representation on 30.11.2021, in which, there is a delay of 8 days excluding the Government Holidays of 4 days. Thereafter, rejection letter was prepared on 30.11.2021 and sent to the detenu on 02.12.2021. Thus, there is a delay of 8 days in considering the petitioner's representation which remains unexplained. 6.
In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 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.
7.
In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government, reported in 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.
2/3
8.
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. 9.
In the present case, admittedly, there is an unexplained delay of 8 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 10.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.41/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2021 dated 22.10.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Vijayabaskar, S/o.Vaithiyalingam, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) rm To 1)The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George,Chennai-600 009.
2)The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy.
3)The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order), Fort St.George,Chennai-9.
5)The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.K.SIVABALAN, Advocate ( SR-22744[F] dated 29/04/2022 ) DATED : 29.04.2022 RK(19/05/2022) 3P 7C 3/3