Allowed

Nallammal, (F, 56/17), v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC2 Jun 2017HCP(MD)/134/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of Habeas Corpus to quash detention of Singaravelan due to 34-day unexplained delay in considering representation. Court quashed detention order citing procedural safeguards and right to liberty.

What did the court decide?

Detention Order P.D.O.No.23 of 2016 quashed; Detenu Singaravelan set at liberty forthwith unless required for other cases.

Nallammal, (F, 56/17), Vs the Principal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.06.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

H.C.P(MD)No.134 of 2017

¶6

Nallammal : Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu,

¶9

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶10

Fort St. George,

¶11

Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector Pudukottai District, Pudukottai

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Prison,

¶14

Thiruchirappalli Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli District.

¶15

: Respondents

¶16

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, connected with the detention order of the respondent no.2 in P.D.No.23 of 2016 dated 10.11.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the Detenue by name Singaravelan son of Muthukannu, aged about 22 years, now detained at Thiruchirappalli Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh

¶18

Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu – Singaravelan, son of Muthukannu, aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.O.No.23/2016, dated 10.11.2016, 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 10.11.2016. The petitioner made a representation dated 27.01.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 30.01.2017. The remarks were duly received on 17.03.2017.Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 21.03.2017.

¶27

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 34 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority.

¶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.

¶31

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

¶32

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 34 days in submitting the remarks by the

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in P.D.O.No.23 of 2016 is quashed. The detenu, namely, Singaravelan, son of Muthukannu, aged about 22 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶38

/True Copy/

¶39

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶40

¶41