Allowed

R.Anitha, F/a 25 Years, v. the Secretary to the

Madras HC15 Dec 2017HCP/1666/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the Madras High Court examined the legality of a detention order against the petitioner's husband, deemed a 'Goonda', citing significant procedural delays. The Court found an unexplained delay of four days in submitting remarks and a further 19 days in considering the representation, violating procedural safeguards. Consequently, the detention order was quashed, and

What did the court decide?

The order of detention No.511/BCDFGISSSV/2017 is set aside, and the detenu Ramesh Babu is directed to be released forthwith unless detained in connection with any other case.

R.Anitha, F/a 25 Years, Vs the Secretary to the — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.12.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

H.C.P.No.1666 of 2017

¶6

R. Anitha ... Petitioner -Vs1.The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Dept. Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. Commissioner of Police, Chennai City. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records connected with the order of the 2^nd respondent in No.511/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 24.08.2017 against the petitioner husband namely Tr. Ramesh Babu son of Sampath aged about 29 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai, and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Senthil Vel For Respondents: Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner is the wife of the detenue, namely, Thiru. Ramesh Babu S/o.Thiru. Sampath, Male, aged about 29 years. The detenue has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order in No.511/BCDFGISSSV/2017, dated 24.08.2017 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

5.The Detention Order in question was passed on 24.08.2017. The petitioner made a representation, dated 01.09.2107 the same was received on 06.09.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on the same day, i.e., on 06.09.2017. The remarks were duly received on 11.09.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 03.10.2017.

¶17

6.It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an unexplainted delay of 2 days in submitting the remarks. Thereafter, there was another delay of 24 days, of which 5 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 19 days in considering the representation.

¶18

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.

¶19

8.In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government, reported in 2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the unexplained delay of three days in disposal of the

¶20

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

¶21

representation made on behalf of the detenu would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention.

¶22

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.

¶23

10.In the subject case, admittedly, there is an unexplained delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and inordinate delay of 19 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶24

11.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.511/BCDFGISSSV/2017 passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Thiru.Ramesh Babu, S/o. Sampath, Male, aged about 29 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his 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.

¶25

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
ggs/kas
To

¶26

1.The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Dept. Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. Commissioner of Police, Chennai City. 3.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public, Law and Order Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶27

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

¶28