Allowed

Tmt.S.Lakshmi, Aged 55 Years, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC10 Jul 2018HCP/1064/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an unexplained delay of 12 days in considering a representation by a preventively detained person constituted a violation of Article 22(5), rendering the detention order illegal and fatal to its continued validity.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention is quashed, the habeas corpus petition is allowed, and the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

Tmt.S.Lakshmi, Aged 55 Years, Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.07.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM

¶6

Habeas Corpus Petition No.1064 of 2018

¶7

S.Lakshmi .. Petitioner / Mother of the detenu - Vs - 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶8

The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissionerate, Greater Chennai, Veperay, Chennai-600 007. .. Respondents

¶9

Petition filed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent herein made in Memo No.526/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 30.08.2017 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same as illega and direct the respondents to produce the detenu viz., Thiru.Loganathan @ Muniyan S/o.Siva aged about 36 years No.1/2, Kulakkarai Street, Medavakkam, Chennai-600 100 now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, as a remand prisoner, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mohanan

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, APP

¶12

The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention on 30.08.2017 as against Loganathan @ Muniyan S/o.Siva aged about 36 years, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenue is a 'Goonda' and he has to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 with a view to preventing him from acting prejudicial to the interest of public health and public order.

¶13

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

¶14

Challenging the order of detention, the mother of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶15

Heard Mr.R.Mohanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶16

It is contended that there is a delay of 12 days in considering the representation and this has rendered the detention illegal.

¶17

4.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that there is a delay of 12 days only, in considering the representation and it in no way vitiates the order of detention.

¶18

4.2. Though such a contention is advanced, however, no explanation has been adduced by the respondents explaining the reasons for the delay.

¶19

In the case of Rashid Kapadia v. Medha Gadgil, (2012 (11) SCC 745), the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the effect of delay in considering the representation and in that context held as under :-

¶20

“13.It is well settled that the right of a person, who is preventively detained, to make a representation and have it considered by the authority concerned as expeditiously as possible, is a constitutional right under Article 22(5). Any unreasonable and unexplainable delay in considering the representation is held to be fatal to the continued detention of the detenu. The proposition is too well settled in a long line of decisions of this Court. We do not think it necessary to examine the authorities on this aspect, except to take note of a couple of judgments where the principle is discussed in detail. They are: Mohinuddin v. District Magistrate, Beed [(1987) 4 SCC 58 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 674] and Harshala Santosh Patil v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 12 SCC 211 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 680].”

¶21

In view of the above proposition, the delay in considering the representation submitted by the petitioner, which has not been explained properly, has vitiated the order of detention. The delay is fatal to the order of detention and this has rendered the detention illegal.

¶22

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

¶23

On this short ground, the order of detention is quashed. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu, Loganathan @ Muniyan S/o.Siva aged about 36 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is otherwise required in any other case.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar
ia/srk
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Office of the Commissionerate,
Greater Chennai,
Veperay, Chennai-600 007.

¶28

The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai.

¶29

The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶30

The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public law and order,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

¶31

H.C.P.No.1064 of 2018 GP(CO) BM 01/08/2018

¶32

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

Tmt.S.Lakshmi, Aged 55 Years, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.S.Lakshmi, Aged 55 Years, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Vasanthi, Aged 32 Years, Vs the Secretary to the

Fathima Roasan, Aged 43 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Selvam Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Thaswanth Vs State of Tamil Nadu

N.Sivabalan, Aged 49 Years, Vs the Superintend of Police

N.Parthasarathy, Aged 66 Years Vs State Represented by Its