Quashed

G.Surendran v. State Rep. by

Madras HC25 Apr 2016HCP/2723/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the Madras High Court quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Dangerous Activities Act due to an unexplained nine-day delay by the government in considering the detenu's representation, citing constitutional mandates for expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 31.8.2015 was quashed and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required for any other case.

G.Surendran Vs State Rep. by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.4.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶6

H.C.P.No.2723 of 2015

¶7

G.Surendran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. State rep by
The Secretary to the Government
Home Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009
2. The District Collector
and District Magistrate
Coimbatore District
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison
Coimbatore District .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent in Cr.M.P.No.50/D.O./2015/E1 drug offender dated 31.8.2015 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu father-in-law Karuppaiah s/o.Sivanandi, petitioner's father-in-law now confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, and set his at liberty forthwith.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambi Durai Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶10

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

¶11

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the son-in-law of the detenu, namely, Karuppaiah, aged 47 years, son of Sivanandi, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.50/D.O./2015/E1, dated 31.8.2015, passed by

¶12

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

¶13

the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) 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”, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu and set him at liberty.

¶14

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 3.11.2015 and remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on 3.11.2015. However, the remarks have been received by the Government only on 17.11.2015, after a delay of 14 days. He adds that the file was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 25.11.2015 and the rejection letter was communicated to the detenu on 27.11.2015. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 5 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 9 days, which remains unexplained. 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.

¶15

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 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.

¶16

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

¶17

As per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 3.11.2015 and remarks have been called for

¶18

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

¶19

from the detaining authority on 3.11.2015. However, remarks have been received by the Government only on 17.11.2015, i.e., after a delay of 14 days and the case of the detenu was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 25.11.2015 and the rejection letter was prepared on 26.11.2015. From the above, it is clear that in between 3.11.2015 and 17.11.2015, [i.e., the intermittent days between the remarks called for and the remarks received] there is a delay of 14 days. Even if we give concession to the 5 intervening holidays including Government holidays, namely, 7.11.2015, 8.11.2015, 10.11.2015, 14.11.2015 and 15.11.2015, still there is a delay of 9 days, which remain unexplained.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

"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."

¶23

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.

¶24

Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala - 2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, 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.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order, dated 31.8.2015, passed by the 2^nd respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶28

s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Secretary to the Government Home Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Coimbatore District 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison Coimbatore District 4. The Joint Secretary to Govt. Public (Law and Order) Dept. Fort St.George, Chennai 9.

¶29

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. ug(co) prk2/6 H.C.P.No.2723 of 2015

¶30

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

G.Surendran v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Surendran v. State Rep. by

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

C.Babu Vs the State Rep Bt Its

Manju Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Srinivasan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Vandimalayan Vs the State Rep by

Tower Murugan @ Murugan, Vs State by Inspector of Police

Murugan, S/O Murugesapillai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by