Allowed

A.Sundarambal v. the District Collector and Disrict Magistrte

Madras HC3 Sept 2019HCP/1260/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Habeas Corpus petition challenged the detention of the petitioner's husband under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court quashed the detention order due to an inordinate and unexplained 11-day delay in considering the petitioner's representation by the detaining authority, violating fundamental rights.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 31.05.2019 was set aside, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless detention was required for another case.

A.Sundarambal Vs the District Collector and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.09.2019

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN

¶5

H.C.P. No. 1260 of 2019

¶6

A.Sundarambal ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
2.The Secretary to the Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records
in connection with the order of detention passed by the first
respondent dated 31.05.2019 in Memo No.R.C.No.C2/14070/2019
dated 31.05.2019 against the petitioner's husband Appasamy, aged
about 39 years, who is now confined in the Central Prison,
Cuddalore in pursuance of the detention order and set aside the
same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before
this Court and set him at liberty.

¶7

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

¶8

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Appasamy, S/o. Chinnathambi, aged about 39 years. The detenu has been detained by the first respondent by his order in Memo

¶9

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

¶10

No.R.C.No.C2/14070/2019 dated 31.05.2019 holding to be a "Sand Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(gg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶11

2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶12

3.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.

¶13

4.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 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.

¶14

The Detention Order in question was passed on 31.05.2019. The petitioner made a representation dated 04.06.2019. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 09.07.2019. The remarks were duly received on 24.07.2019. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 26.07.2019.

¶15

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 15 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 4 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 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.

¶20

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

¶21

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.R.C.No.C2/14070/2019 dated 31.05.2019, passed by the first respondent is set aside. The detenu, Appasamy, S/o. Chinnathambi, aged about 39 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mmi/ssm To

¶23

1.The District Collector and District Magistrate Villupuram District, Villupuram. 2.The Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶24