Mohana v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA Mohana ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.

4.The Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam Police Station, Karur District.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent in Detention Order on 29.08.2024 in Detention Order in Cr.M.P.No.23/2024 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or her son of the detenue, Sasikumar, S/o.Loganathan, aged 24 years, before this Court and set him at liberty, now confined at Central Prison, Trichy.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Gokulraj For Respondents :

Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The son of the petitioner is the detenu viz., Sasikumar, son of Loganathan, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.23/2024, dated 29.08.2024 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, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 08.09.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 08.09.2024, the same was received by the Government on 16.09.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 04.10.2024. There is a delay of 6 days in Column Nos.6 & 7 of the Proforma in considering the petitioner's representation. The said delay of 6 days in considering the representation remains unexplained and the same vitiates the impugned detention order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order. He further submitted that the co-

accused in this case has already filed H.C.P(MD)No.1367 of 2024 and the same has been dismissed by this Court on 22.04.2025. It is also stated that even if there is any delay in disposal of the representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a delay in considering the representation. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the petitioner is dated 08.09.2024, which was received by the Government on 16.09.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 04.10.2024. As per the proforma submitted the by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of 6 days in Column Nos.6 & 7 in considering the representation of the petitioner and we find that the said delay remains unexplained.

6. It is trite law that the representation should be very expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay.

Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. From the records produced, we find that no acceptable explanation has been offered for the delay of 6 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.

7. In the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajammal's case, it has been held as follows: "It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words "as soon as may be " in clause

(5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest."

8. As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited Rajammal's case, number of days of delay is immaterial and what is to be considered is whether the delay caused has been properly explained by the

authorities concerned. But, in the instant case, the inordinate delay of 6 days has not been properly explained.

9. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is a history of insistence on procedural safeguards. The expression 'as soon as may be', in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India clearly shows the concern of the makers of the Constitution that the representation made on behalf of the detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.

10. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of delay on the part of the Government in disposing of the representation of the petitioner.

11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.23/2024, dated 29.08.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Sasikumar, aged about 24 years, son of

Loganathan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 11.06.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No am To:

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.

4.The Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam Police Station, Karur District.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

AND R.POORNIMA , J.

am 11.06.2025