Allowed

Dhanavalli, F/55 v. the District Collector and

Madras HC18 Dec 2017HCP/2154/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the mother of a detenu challenged his detention as a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Act of 1982. The court held that inordinate and unexplained delays in processing the representation rendered the detention illegal.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 23.08.2017 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

Dhanavalli, F/55 Vs the District Collector and — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.12.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.No.2154 of 2017

¶7

Dhanavalli ... Petitioner -Vs1.The District Collector and District Magistrate Cuddalore District Cuddalore

¶8

2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. ... 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 C3/D.O./49/2017 on the file of the first respondent quash the detention order 23.08.2017 and direct the production of th detenu Baskar age 31, son of Chakrapani, presently detained at the Central Prison, Cuddalore under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A.M.R.Rahamath Ali For Respondents: Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, namely, Thiru.Baskar, S/o.Sakkarapani, Male, aged about 31 years. The detenu has been detained by the 1^st respondent by his order in C3/D.O/49/2017 dated 23.08.2017 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

4.Notice in this petition was issued on 16.11.2017, 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.

¶17

5.The Detention Order in question was passed on 23.08.2017. The petitioner made a representation, dated Nil the same was received on 05.10.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority i.e., on 06.10.2017. The remarks were duly received on 16.11.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 08.12.2017.

¶18

6.It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of 41 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 13 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of 28 days in submitting the remarks. Thereafter, there was another inordinate delay of 22 days in considering the representation, of which 7 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was another an inordinate delay of 15 days in considering the representation.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶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 inordinate delay of 28 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 15 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 C3/D.O.49/2017 dated 23.08.2017 passed by the 1^st respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Thiru.Baskar, S/o.Sakkarapani, Male, aged about 31 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/Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kas To

¶26

1.The District Collector and District Magistrate Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. 2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶27