Allowed

Nagendran v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC1 Nov 2018HCP(MD)/1296/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged detention order under Section 2(f) Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 under Article 226. Court held inordinate delay in processing representation vitiates detention and quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

Detention order quashed; detenu ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in another case.

Nagendran Vs the Principal Secretary to — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.11.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

H.C.P(MD)No.1296 of 2018

Nagendran

: Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶12

The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District. : Respondents

¶13

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 second respondent in No.45/BCDFGISSSV/2018, dated 29.08.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Nagendran, son of Jeyamani, aged about 25 years, now detained at Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.K.Dinesh Babu, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

***************

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner is the detenu - Nagendran, son of Jeyamani, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second

¶21

¶22

respondent by his order in No.45/BCDFGISSSV/2018, dated 29.08.2018, 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

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 29.08.2018. The petitioner made a representation dated 03.09.2018. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 05.09.2018. The remarks were duly received on 11.09.2018. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 01.10.2018.

¶27

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and thereafter, there was again a delay of 11 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) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SCC 321 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the

¶31

¶32

representation renders the very detention illegal.

¶33

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 11 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶34

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition shall stand allowed and the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in No.45/BCDFGISSSV/2018, dated 29.08.2018, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Nagendran, son of Jeyamani, aged about 25 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶37

/True Copy/

¶38

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)

¶39

¶40