Allowed

Dhanalakshmi v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC23 Feb 2017HCP(MD)/1206/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner mother filed habeas corpus petition against detention of her son as a 'Goonda' for delayed consideration of representation. Court held 13-day unexplained delay fatal to legality. Quashed detention order and directed release unless detention required for other case.

What did the court decide?

Detention order C.O.C.No.58/2016 dated 27.08.2016 quashed and detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required for other case.

Dhanalakshmi Vs State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.02.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE NISHA BANU

¶4

H.C.P(MD)No.1206 of 2016

Dhanalakshmi

: Petitioner

Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by, The Secretary to Government,

¶9

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶10

Fort.St.George, Secretariat,

¶11

Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.

¶13

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

¶14

: Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records in detention order passed in C.O.C.No.58/2016, dated 27.08.2016, on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son, namely, Nadavandi Mohan @ Mohan, S/o.Chandrakasan, Male, aged 36 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran

¶17

Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J. ]

¶21

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu - Nadavandi Mohan @ Mohan, S/o.Chandrakasan, Male, aged 36 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.O.C.No.58/2016, dated 27.08.2016, holding him to be a "Goonda", https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶22

¶23

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶24

3.Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel 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 on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.

¶25

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.

¶26

The Detention Order in question was passed on 27.08.2016. The petitioner made a representation dated 06.09.2016. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 12.09.2016. The remarks were duly received on 22.09.2016. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 15.10.2016.

¶27

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of thirteen days in considering the representation.

¶28

In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble 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.

¶29

In Sumaiya Vs. The Secretary to Government, [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.

¶30

In Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, [1980 (2) SCC 321], the Hon'ble 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 13 days in considering the

¶32

¶33

representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶34

In the result, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in C.O.C.No.58/2016, dated 27.08.2016, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Nadavandi Mohan @ Mohan, S/o.Chandrakasan, Male, aged 36 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.

¶35