Allowed

Jayalakshmi, F/A-32 Years v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Dec 2017HCP/2165/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a detainee under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court quashed the detention order, finding that unexplained delays in considering the detenu's representation violated procedural safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.80/2017 dated 09.09.2017 set aside and detenu directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

Jayalakshmi, F/A-32 Years Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.12.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.2165 of 2017

¶6

Jayalakshmi

¶7

... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Inspector of Police,
H-1, Otteri Police Station,
Kanchipuram,
Kanchipuram.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kanchipuram,
Kanchipuram District.
3.The Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Gawaskar, male aged 36, son of Rathinam detained under Act 14/82 vide order No.BCDFGISSSV No.80/2017 dated 09.09.2017 and now confined at Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith by call for records and setting aside the order of Detention bearing vide order No.BCDFGISSSV No.80/2017 dated 09.09.2017 on the 2^nd respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Krishnamoorthy for M/s.J.B.Solomon Peter Kamaldoss For Respondents: Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Thiru.Gawaskar, S/o.Rathinam, Male, aged about 36 years. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.80/2017, dated 09.09.2017 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.

¶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 09.09.2017. The petitioner made a representation, dated 10.11.2017 the same was received on 14.11.2017, 17.11.2017 and 22.11.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on the same day, i.e., on 14.11.2017, 17.11.2017 and 22.11.2017. The remarks were duly received on 21.11.2017 and 23.11.2017.

¶18

6.It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an unexplained delay of 7, 6 and 1 day in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶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 unexplained delay of 7, 6 and 1 day in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. 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 BCDFGISSSV No.80/2017, dated 09.09.2017 passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Thiru.Gawaskar, S/o.Rathinam, Male, aged about 36 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

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

kas

¶29

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

¶30

To
1.The Inspector of Police,
H-1, Otteri Police Station,
Kanchipuram District,
Kanchipuram.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kanchipuram,
Kanchipuram District.
3.The Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai-600 009.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
5.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Madras.
H.C.P.No.2165 of 2017
aa14/12/2017

¶31

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

Jayalakshmi, F/A-32 Years v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayalakshmi, F/A-32 Years v. the Inspector of Police

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

Vanmathi (F/25) Vs the Secretary to Government

Kannan, 40 Yrs, Vs Additional Chief Secretary to

Vanmathi (F/25) Vs the Secretary to Government

Parthasarathy, M/a 26 Years, Vs the Secretary to the

Abdul Jaffer, M/A.52 Years Vs the State of Tamilnadu

K.Dheivasigamani Vs the Inspector of Police