Allowed

Venkatalakshmi v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC5 Jul 2019HCP/863/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed a detention order due to an inordinate and unexplained 14-day delay in considering the detenu's representation by the Detaining Authority, citing violation of procedural safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention order set aside; detenu N.Prasanth directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

Venkatalakshmi Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.07.2019

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

H.C.P. No.863 of 2019

¶6

Venkatalakshmi

¶7

-vs-.

¶8

1.The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009

¶9

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. Vepery, Chennai – 600 007 ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of detention dated 22.02.2019 in Memo No.99/BCDFGISSSV/2019 passed by the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to set forth the detenu N.Prasanth, S/o. Venkatesan, aged 24 years now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, N.Prasanth, S/o. Venkatesan, aged 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.99/BCDFGISSSV/2019, dated 22.02.2019, holding 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 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.

¶17

The Detention Order in question was passed on 22.02.2019. The petitioner made a representation dated 28.03.2019. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 01.04.2019. The remarks were duly received on 05.04.2019. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 02.05.2019.

¶18

It is the contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 05.04.2019 and there was delay of 25 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 11 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 14 days in considering the representation. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 02.05.2019.

¶19

7.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 detenue.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 14 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶24

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.99/BCDFGISSSV/2019, dated 22.02.2019 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, N.Prasanth, S/o. Venkatesan, aged 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶25

-s/d-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶27

True Copy

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

mmi/ssm

¶30

To: