Remanded

Arul Prakash @ Prakash @ v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC7 Jul 2017HCP(MD)/306/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas Corpus petition challenging detention under Tamil Nadu Goondas Act dismissed due to procedural lapses. Court found inordinate delay by detaining authority in submitting remarks and government in considering representation violated fundamental rights, quashing the order.

What did the court decide?

Habeas Corpus Petition allowed; detention order P.D.No.11/2017 set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless detention required for other case.

Arul Prakash @ Prakash @ Vs the Principal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.07.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR H.C.P.(MD) No.306 of 2017

¶5

Arul Prakash @ Prakash @ Arun Prakash ...Petitioner

¶6

-vs-

¶7

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶8

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶9

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in P.D.No.11/2017 dated 10.02.2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely Arul Prakash @ Prakash @ Arun Prakash, S/o.Selvakumar, aged about 22 years, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan. For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J. ]

¶14

The petitioner, namely, Arul Prakash @ Prakash @ Arun Prakash, son of Selvakumar, Male, aged about 22 years has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.11 of 2017, dated 10.02.2017, 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.

¶15

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶16

¶17

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 on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.

¶18

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.

¶19

The Detention Order in question was passed on 10.02.2017. The petitioner made a representation on 25.02.2017. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 02.03.2017. The remarks were duly received on 10.03.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 20.03.2017.

¶20

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks. Thereafter, there was another delay of 7 days in considering the representation, of which 2 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was another inordinate delay of 5 days in considering the representation.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the very detention illegal.

¶24

¶25

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 5 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶26

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in P.D.No.11/2017, dated 10.02.2017, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Arul Prakash @ Prakash @ Arun Prakash, son of Selvakumar, aged about 22 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

To:

¶32

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶33

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶34

4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (In duplicate for communication to detenue) 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sj SDS/SV/SAR 4/21.07.2017/3P/6C

¶36

H.C.P.(MD) No.306 of 2017 07.07.2017

Arul Prakash @ Prakash @ v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arul Prakash @ Prakash @ v. the Principal Secretary to

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

Dr. T. Sam Elango Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

The Secretary to Government of Vs L.P.Parameswaran

Suresh Vs the Prinicipal Secretary to

P.Arivazhagan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

V.Malaiyalagu Vs the Commissioner of Police

Palavesam Vs the Principal Secretary to