IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.11.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR H.C.P.No.1679 of 2017 Senthilkumar ... Petitioner -vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. ... 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 dated 31.05.2017 in Memo No.317/BCDFGISSSV/2017 against the petitioner/detenu Senthilkumar S/o.Rangasamy, Hindu aged about 41 years is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 66 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Perarasu For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.] The petitioner is the detenu, namely, Thiru.Senthilkumar, S/o.Rangasamy, Male, aged about 41 years. The detenu has been detained by the 2nd respondent by his order in No.317/BCDFGISSSV/2017, dated 31.05.2017, 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 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 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 31.05.2017. The petitioner made a representation, dated 29.06.2017 and the same was received on 03.07.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on the same day i.e., on 03.07.2017. The remarks were duly received on 06.07.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 10.07.2017.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 2 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 0 day were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 2 days in submitting the remarks. Thereafter, there was another delay of 1 day in considering the representation, of which 0 day were Government Holidays, hence, there was another inordinate delay of 1 day in considering the representation.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In Tara Chand vs. State of Anbazhagansthan 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.
10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 2 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 1 day in considering the representation . The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.317/BCDFGISSSV/2017, dated 31.05.2017, passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Thiru.Senthilkumar, S/o.Rangasamy, Male, aged about 41 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Given the nature of the case, this order will be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent by the Registrar General of this Court via Fax.
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No pam
Note to office:
1. Issue order copy by today itself.
[R.S.A.,J.] [N.S.K.,J.] 07.11.2017
2. Order will be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent by the Registrar General of this Court via Fax.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
and N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
pam To:
1. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3. The Joint Secretary, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
5. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1679 of 2017
07.11.2017