Quashed

Amutha, F/60, v. the State of Tn Rep by Its

Madras HC15 Jun 2017HCP(MD)/159/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed a detention order under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act due to inordinate and unexplained procedural delays by the detaining authority and government, holding the detention illegal without prejudice to the detenu's fundamental rights.

What did the court decide?

The detention order passed on 15.12.2016 is quashed and the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required for other cases.

Amutha, F/60, Vs the State of Tn Rep by Its — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.06.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN H.C.P(MD)No.159 of 2017

¶6

Amutha : Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,

¶9

Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv) Department,

¶10

Secretariat,

¶11

Chennai-600 009.

¶12

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

¶13

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

¶14

: Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records, relating to order passed by 2^nd respondent dated 15.12.2016 in P.D.No.84/2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce body of petitioner's son, Thiyagu @ Thiyagarajan S/o.Murugesan, aged about 36, Irulappapuram, Kottar, Nagercoil, Vadiveeswaram South Village, Agasthesswaram Taluk, Kanniyakumari District now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forth with.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

¶19

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶20

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though the counter affidavit has not been filed, the proforma has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been available and he has agreed to make his submissions based on the said proforma.

¶21

¶22

2.The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu aged about 36 years has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.84/2016 dated 15.12.2016, 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.

¶23

3.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

4.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

5.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

6.The Detention Order in question was passed on 15.12.2016. The petitioner made a representation dated 24.12.2016. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 28.12.2016. The remarks were duly received on 09.01.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 19.01.2017.

¶27

7.It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and thereafter, there was again a delay of 6 days in considering the representation.

¶28

8.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

9.In Sumaiya Vs. The Secretary to Government , [ 2007 (2) MWN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Cr.) 145] , a Division Bench of this Court has held that the unexplained delay of three days in disposal of the representation

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

10.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.

¶33

11.In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 6 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶34

12.In the result, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in P.D.No.84/2016 dated 15.12.2016, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Thiyagu @ Thiyagarajan, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.

¶35

13.In the upshot, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶38

/True copy/

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

¶41