Quashed

R.Tamilchelvi, v. the Prl.Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC3 Apr 2018HCP(MD)/24/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Habeas Corpus petition challenging a detention order passed under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the Madurai Bench held that an inordinate and unexplained delay of seven days in considering a representation by the detaining authority rendered the detention illegal and quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

Detention Order dated 27.12.2017 quashed; detenu Raman @ Ramar ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

R.Tamilchelvi, Vs the Prl.Secretary to Govt. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.04.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED H.C.P(MD)No.24 of 2018

R.Tamilchelvi

: Petitioner

Vs.

The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu,

¶11

Home, Prohibition and Excise IX, Secretariat, George Fort,

¶12

Chennai - 600 009.

¶13

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶14

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

¶15

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in Detention Order No.104/2017 and set aside the order of detention passed therein dated 27.12.2017 direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Raman @ Ramar, Son of Ranjith, male, aged 32 years before this Court, now detained at Central Prison, Madurai and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.J.William Christopher For Respondents : Mr.V.Neelakandan Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶17

**O R D E R *************

¶18

[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.]

¶19

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu - Raman @ Ramar, aged about 32 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Order No.104/2017, dated 27.12.2017, 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.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

The Detention Order in question was passed on 27.12.2017. The petitioner made a representation dated 03.01.2018. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 08.01.2018. The remarks were duly received on 19.01.2018. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 22.01.2018.

¶26

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶33

In the result, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in Order No.104/2017, dated 27.12.2017, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Raman @ Ramar, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.

¶34