Allowed

Srinivasan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC22 Apr 2016HCP/3245/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the High Court quashed a detention order against Srinivasan due to an unexplained 19-day delay in considering his representation by the State authorities. The court held that such unexplained delay violates constitutional mandates regarding personal liberty.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 30.9.2015 is quashed, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty.

Srinivasan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.4.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

H.C.P.No.3245 of 2015

¶6

Srinivasan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009 2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 30.9.2015 in Memo No.1056/BCDFGISSSV/2015 against the petitioner/detenu Srinivasan s/o.Nadimuthu, Hindu aged about 41 years, is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Perarasu

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambi Durai Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶10

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the detenu, namely, Srinivasan, aged 41 years, son of Nadimuthu, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Memo No.1056/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 30.9.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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 29.12.2015 and remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on 31.12.2015. However, the remarks have been received by the Government only on 1.2.2016, after a delay of 32 days. He adds that the file was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 14.2.2016 and the rejection letter was communicated to the detenu on 16.2.2016. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 13 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 19 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.

¶14

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.

¶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 29.12.2015 and remarks have been called for

¶17

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

¶18

from the detaining authority on 31.12.2015. However, remarks have been received by the Government only on 1.2.2016, i.e., after a delay of 32 days and the case of the detenu was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 14.2.2016 and the rejection letter was prepared on 15.2.2016. From the above, it is clear that in between 31.12.2015 and 1.2.2016, [i.e., the intermittent days between the remarks called for and the remarks received] there is a delay of 32 days. Even if we give concession to the 13 intervening holidays including Government holidays, namely, 1.1.2016, 2.1.2016, 3.1.2016, 9.1.2016, 10.1.2016, 15.1.2016, 16.1.2016, 17.1.2016, 23.1.2016, 24.1.2016, 26.1.2016 and 30.1.2016, 31.1.2016 still there is a delay of 19 days, which remain unexplained.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

"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."

¶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 19 days delay has not been properly explained at all.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

the representation, made on behalf of the detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.

¶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 30.9.2015, 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

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To:
1. The Secretary to the Government
The State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Police
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai
5. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and order) Fort Saint George,
Chennai
1 cc to M/s.V. Perarasu, Advocate, SR. 25006
H.C.P.No.3245 of 2015
MP (CO)
kk 2/6

¶29

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

Srinivasan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

K.Arivu @ Arivazhagan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Madhan @ Madhanraj Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Kannan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

C.Babu Vs the State Rep Bt Its

Manju Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Priya, W/O. Jothivel Vs State Rep. by