Allowed

S.Karishma v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC15 Dec 2016HCP/1216/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a detainee. The Court held that an unexplained nine-day delay in considering and disposing of a representation filed by the detenu under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act vitiated the detention order, rendering continued detention illegal. The detention order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the detention order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the second respondent and directed the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith.

S.Karishma Vs the Principal Secretary to — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.12.2016

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN H.C.P.No. 1216 of 2016

¶4

S.Karishma .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Home and Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai – 09
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
4. The State rep.by Inspector of Police
H.3, Tondiarpet Police Station
Chennai
5. The State rep.by Inspector of Police
H.6, R.K.Nagar Police Station
Chennai .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the
respondents to call for the records vide Order BCDFGISSSV No.498
of 2016, dated 29.4.2016, on the file of the 2nd respondent and
set aside the same and to produce the petitioner's husband
Sathish Kumar @ Dhadi Sathish, aged about 23 years, now
confined at the Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai and set him
at liberty forthwith.

¶5

For Petitioner : Dr.G.Krishnamurthy

¶6

For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

ORDER

¶9

[Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN, J.]

¶10

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Sathish Kumar @ Dhadi Sathish, aged 23 years, son of Venkatesan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Detention Order No.498/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 29.04.2016, passed by the second respondent herein, detaining the detenu, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a “Goonda”, in the Central Prison, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu and set him at liberty.

¶11

Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he confined his arguments only to the ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation of the detenu, has been received by the Government, on 15.06.2016, and the remarks have been called for from the detaining authority, on 16.06.2016. However, the remarks have been received by the Government only on 24.06.2016, after a delay of 8 days. He adds that the file was dealt with by the Deputy Secretary concerned, on 24.6.2016 and the same was dealt with by the Minister concerned, on 29.06.2016 and the rejection letter was communicated to the detenu, on 30.06.2016. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 4 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 9 days, which remains unexplained. Thus, there is delay at different stages while considering the representation of the detenu. The unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenu vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.

¶12

Resisting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had further submitted that there

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

was no deliberate delay on the part of the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of the representation of the detenu. It is contended that such a delay is not fatal to the impugned detention order, as the authorities concerned are dealing with the file right from the date of receipt of the representation and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶15

We have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to facts and citation and perused the materials available on record.

¶16

As per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 15.06.2016 and the remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on 16.06.2016. However, remarks have been received by the Government only on 24.06.2016, i.e., after a delay of 8 days and the case of the detenu was dealt with by the Deputy Secretary concerned, on 24.06.2016 and the same was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 29.06.2016 and the same was rejected on 30.06.2016. From the above, it is clear that in between 16.06.2016 and 24.06.2016, [i.e., the intermittent days between the remarks called for and the remarks received] there is a delay of 8 days. Further, in between 24.06.2016 and 29.06.2016 [i.e., the intermittent days between the case was dealt with by the Deputy Secretary and the Minister concerned], there is a delay of 4 days. Thus, there is delay at different stages while considering the representation of the detenu. Even if we give concession to the 4 intervening holidays including Government holidays, namely 18.06.2016, 19.06.2016, 25.06.2016, and 26.06.2016, still there is a delay of 9 days, which remains unexplained.

¶17

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 9 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.

¶18

7.In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal's case (cited supra), it has been held as follows:

¶19

"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

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest."

¶22

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, here 9 days delay has not been properly explained at all.

¶23

Further, in a decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala reported in (2011) 10 SCC 781, the 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.

¶24

In the light of the above fact and law, 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 detenu.

¶25

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order dated 29.04.2016, passed by the second respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Asst.Registrar (CS II )

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

ajr

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶33

Home Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶34

Chennai – 600 009

¶35

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

The Superintendent
Central Prison II
Puzhal, Chennai
4. The State rep.by
Inspector of Police
H.3, Tondiarpet Police Station
Chennai
5. The State rep.by Inspector of Police
H.6, R.K.Nagar Police Station
Chennai
6. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public Law ad order
Fort St. George, Chennai-9
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
1 cc to M/s. Dr.G. Krishnamurthy, Advocate, Sr. 73087
H.C.P.No. 1216 of 2016
UG (CO)
kk 12/1

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Karishma v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Karishma v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Rajeswari, Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

M.Manimegalai Vs the Secretary to Government

Peachiammal Vs the Secretary to Government

M.Delhi Babu, Aged 27 Years Vs Inspector of Police

Mr.Samuvel Jayaraj, Aged 63YRS Vs the Superintendent of Police

Suresh, Aged 33 Years Vs the Superintendent of Police