Allowed

Kaliammal v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Madras HC11 Apr 2016HCP/2931/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition quashing a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goonda Act. The court held that an unexplained eight-day delay in disposing of the detenu's representation violated the constitutional obligation under Article 22(5) to act 'as soon as may be', thus rendering the continued detention illegal.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 11.10.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Kaliammal Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.4.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶7

H.C.P.No.2931 of 2015

¶8

Kaliammal ... Petitioner/Mother of the Detenu

¶9

Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Namakkal District, Namakkal ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent pertaining to the order made in C.M.P.No.64/Goonda/2015/M1 dated 11.10.2015 in detaining the detenu under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son the detenu herein, namely Nainaar @ Athinarayanan s/o.Thangappa aged about 26 years who is detained at the Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Giritharan

¶12

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Nainaar @ Athinarayanan, aged 26 years, son of Thangappa, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in C.M.P.No.64/Goonda/2015/M1 dated 11.10.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1)

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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 27.10.2015 and remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on 27.10.2015. However, the remarks have been received by the Government only on 6.11.2015, after a delay of 10 days. He adds that the file was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 15.11.2015 and the rejection letter was communicated to the detenu on 19.11.2015. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 2 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 8 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

As per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the representation of the detenu was received

¶19

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

¶20

by the Government on 27.10.2015 and remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on 27.10.2015. However, remarks have been received by the Government only on 6.11.2015, i.e., after a delay of 10 days and the case of the detenu was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 15.11.2015 and the rejection letter was prepared on 18.11.2015. From the above, it is clear that in between 27.10.2015 and 6.11.2015, [i.e., the intermittent days between the remarks called for and the remarks received] there is a delay of 10 days. Even if we give concession to the 2 intervening holidays including Government holidays, namely, 31.10.2015 and 1.11.2015, still there is a delay of 8 days, which remain unexplained.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

"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."

¶24

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 8 days delay has not been properly explained at all.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.

¶28

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.

¶29

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order, dated 11.10.2015, 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.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To:

¶31

The Secretary to the Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009

¶32

The District Magistrate and District Collector Namakkal District, Namakkal. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.

¶33

The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.S.Giritharan, Advocate, S.R.No.22869

¶34

H.C.P.No.2931 of 2015

¶35

CA(CO) CA(30/05/2016)

¶36

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

Kaliammal v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaliammal v. State of Tamilnadu 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

S.Muthukrishnan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Muniyammal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Tmt.Kumari Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Sivagami Vs State of Tamilnadu

Pushpa Vs the Secretary to Government

Mohan Vs the Secretary to Government