Allowed

Kaliyammal v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC29 Jul 2019HCP/901/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court held that an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the detainee's representation rendered the detention illegal and ordered the release of the detenu.

What did the court decide?

The detention order passed vide Memo C.No.21/G/IS/2019 dated 24.04.2019 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other c

Kaliyammal Vs the Secretary to Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.07.2019

¶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.901 of 2019

¶6

Kaliyammal ... Petitioner

¶7

-vs-
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
City Police Office,
Huzur Road, Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore – 18 ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 24.04.2019 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C.No.21/G/IS/2019, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely M.Saravanan @ Size Saravanan, S/o. Marudhachalam, aged 36 years before this Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents :^{Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj} Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu M.Saravanan @ Size Saravanan, S/o. Marudhachalam, aged 36 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo C.No.21/G/IS/2019 dated 24.04.2019, holding to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶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 24.04.2019. The petitioner made a representation dated 06.05.2019. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 07.05.2019. The remarks were duly received on 15.05.2019. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 03.06.2019.

¶18

It is the contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 15.05.2019 and there was delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks, of which, 2 days were Government Holidays. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a delay of 16 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy

¶19

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

¶20

Secretary dealt with it, of which 4 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 12 days in considering the representation. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 03.06.2019.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay 6 days in submitting the remarks and 12 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.

¶25

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo C.No.21/G/IS/2019 dated 24.04.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, M.Saravanan @ Size Saravanan, S/o. Marudhachalam, aged 36 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar (Insp.Cell)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

mmi/ssm

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009

¶34

2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, Huzur Road, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore – 18.

¶35

3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,Coimbatore.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law&Order) Fort.St.George,
Chennai 9
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
SPD(CO)
CB(13/09/2019)
H.C.P. No.901 of 2019

¶36

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

Kaliyammal v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaliyammal v. the Secretary to Government

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

Vasudevan B. Vs D.Karthikeyan IAS

Balamma Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Veerapappa Age 51 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

A.Ganesh Vs the Commissioner of Polic,E

Jothi Vs the Commissioner of Police

Palani Vs the Superintendent of Police