Allowed

Punitha, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Dec 2017HCP/1549/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court quashed a detention order against the petitioner's mother for bootlegging due to an inordinate and unexplained delay of 3 days in submitting remarks and 4 days in considering the representation filed by the petitioner, relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The detention order B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.V.No.73/2017 dated 10.08.2017 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

Punitha, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :05.12.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶7

H.C.P.No.1549 of 2017

Punitha

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶12

Rep. by its Secretary to Government,

¶13

Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶14

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶15

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire record connected the order of the detention passed by the 2^nd respondent pertaining to the order made in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.73/2017 dated 10.08.2017 against the petitioner mother Tmt.Nagu, W/o.Elumalai, aged 45 years who is confined at Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set her liberty.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran For Respondents: Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

[Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.]

¶20

The petitioner is the daughter of the detenu, namely, Tmt.Nagu, W/o.Elumalai, Female, aged about 45 years. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.73/2017, dated 10.08.2017 holding her to be a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

5.The Detention Order in question was passed on 10.08.2017. The petitioner made a representation, dated 12.09.2017 and the same was received on 14.09.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on the same day, i.e., on 14.09.2017. The remarks were duly received on 20.09.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 03.10.2017.

¶26

6.It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 05 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 02 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 03 days in submitting the remarks. Thereafter, there was another delay of 06 days in considering the representation, of which 02 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was another delay of 04 days in considering the representation.

¶27

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.

¶28

8.In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government, reported in 2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145, a Division Bench of this Court has held

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

10.In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 03 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 04 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶33

11.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.73/2017, dated 10.08.2017 passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Tmt.Nagu, W/o.Elumalai, Female, aged about 45 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless her 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.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Asst.Registrar (CS II )

¶36

/true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar

¶37

pam To: 1.Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 3.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public, Law and Order Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶38

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

¶39