Allowed

JOTHI,60 Yrs, v. the Secretrary to Government

Madras HC20 Dec 2017HCP/1738/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the High Court allowed the challenge against an order of preventive detention. The court quashed the order due to an unexplained and inordinate delay in submitting remarks and considering the petitioner's representation, citing established precedents on procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.26/2017 dated 09.08.2017 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required in another case.

JOTHI,60 Yrs, Vs the Secretrary to Government — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.12.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.1738 of 2017

¶6

Jothi ... Petitioner -Vs-

¶7

1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶8

District Revenue Officer, District Magistrate and District Collector (Full Additional Charge) Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent 09.08.2017 in BCDFGISSSV/26/2017 against the petitioner son Anandhan, male aged 34 years, S/o.Mari @ Marimuthu who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at liberty.

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, namely, Thiru.Anandhan, S/o.Mari @ Marimuthu, male, aged about 34 years. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.26/2017 dated 09.08.2017 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 unexplained delay with regard to the same.

¶15

4.Notice in this petition was issued on 15.09.2017, despite which, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State. However, 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 09.08.2017. The petitioner made a representation, dated 28.08.2017 the same was received on 05.09.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on the same day, i.e., on 05.09.2017. The remarks were duly received on 05.10.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 11.10.2017.

¶17

6.It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of 30 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority of which 10 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of 20 days in submitting the remarks. Thereafter, there was another unexplained delay of 6 days in considering the representation, of which 2 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was another unexplained delay of 4 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

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

¶20

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

¶21

9.In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan 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.

¶22

10.In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 20 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 4 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶23

11.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.26/2017 dated 09.08.2017 passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Thiru.Anandhan, S/o.Mari @ Marimuthu, male, aged about 34 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.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶28

District Revenue Officer, District Magistrate and District Collector (Full Additional Charge) Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur

¶29

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

¶30

3.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public, Law and Order Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison -II, Puzhal, Chennai.-via Fax (In duplicate for communication to detenu) 6.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1738 of 2017 mg(co) aa20/12/2017

¶31

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

JOTHI,60 Yrs, v. the Secretrary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

JOTHI,60 Yrs, v. the Secretrary to Government

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.Munusamy Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sikkanthar BASHA,30 Yrs, Vs the Secretray to Governement

Purushothaman, 65 Years Vs the State of Puducherry

M/S.Shanthi Fortune India Vs Chokhani Pharma Vet

G.Senguttuvan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Suresh, M-45 Yrs, Vs the Deputy Superintendent