Logasundhari v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.09.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI Logasundhari ... Petitioner (wife of the detenu) -vs1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur District, Karur.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in Detention Order No. Cr.M.P.No.15/2019 dated 20.09.2019 and quash the same, direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name, Perumal @ Soundharajan, S/o Muthukrishnan Male aged about 36 years, now detained as "Goonda" in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :
Mr.A.Sarankumar For Respondents :
Mr.V.Neelakandan Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.] The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Perumal @ Soundharajan, son of Muthukrishnan, male aged about 36 years, who has been branded as "Goonda" by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.15/2019, dated 20.09.2019, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 1/3
2.Though several grounds have been raised challenging the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent, dated 20.09.2019, Mr.A.Sarankumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India has been 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.V.Neelakandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 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 records.
5.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the detenu was detained by the order of the second respondent dated 20.09.2019. Aggrieved over the same, a representation dated 03.10.2019 has been sent to the first respondent and the same was received on 09.10.2019 and on 10.10.2019, remarks were called for, but the same were received on 28.11.2019. The Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 28.11.2019. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 14.12.2019 and thereafter, the detenu's representation was rejected on 17.12.2019. It is seen that there was delay of 48 days between 10.10.2019 and 28.11.2019. It is also seen that there are 13 Government holidays and after excluding the same, there is a delay of 35 days in considering the representation of the detenu.
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 nay 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 35 days in considering the representation of the 2/3
detenu. 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.15/2019 dated 20.09.2019, is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Perumal @ Soundharajan, son of Muthukrishnan, male aged about 36 years, now detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) skn 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, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Chennai - 9. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur District,Karur.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Tiruchirappalli.
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.
02.09.2020 AP(14/09/2020) 3P 6C 3/3