Muthulakshmi v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Muthulakshmi ... Petitioner/mother of the detenue Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Trichirapalli, Trichirapalli District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichirapalli District.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's son Sakthivel @ Yelamarivu, S/o.Arivazahan, aged 24 years detained under Section 2 (f) of Act 14/1982 vide detention order dated 15.07.2021 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.29/2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenue before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from Central Prison at Trichirapalli.
For Petitioner : Ms.M.Benazir Begum For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
O R D E R
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
The Petitioner is the mother of the detenu, namely,Sakthivel @ Yelamarivu, S/o.Arivazahan, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.29/2021 dated 15.07.2021, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1/3
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 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 representations made by the petitioner were not considered on 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 15.07.2021. The petitioner made a representation, dated 16.08.2021 and the same was received on 02.09.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 02.09.2021. Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary has dealt with the representation on 13.09.
2021 and thereafter, the Minister for Electricity & Prohibition and Excise, has dealt with the representation on 28.10.2021, in which, there is a delay of 27 days, after excluding the Government Holidays of 15 days. Ultimately, the representation was rejected on 28.10.2021. Thus there is a delay of 29 days in considering the 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 subject case, admittedly, there is an unexplained delay of 29 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 Cr.M.P.No.29/2021 dated 15.07.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Sakthivel @ Yelamarivu, S/o.Arivazahan, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) pm To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Trichirapalli, Trichirapalli District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichirapalli District.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order), Fort saint George, Chennai-600 009.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
H.C.P(MD).No.1843 of 2021 10.03.2022 RD(25.03.2022) 3P 6C 3/3