Allowed

Elangovan v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Madras HC5 Oct 2020HCP/595/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a drug offender detention order under writ of habeas corpus, claiming gross violation of procedural safeguards due to a 6-day unexplained delay in disposing of the detenu's representation. The court set aside the detention and directed release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order No.90/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 13.02.2020 set aside; detenu Karan directed to be released forthwith.

Elangovan Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:05.10.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

H.C.P. No. 595 of 2020

¶7

Elangovan .. Petitioner

¶8

¶9

State of Tamil Nadu Rep.

¶10

By its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

¶11

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶12

Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai – 03. .. Respondents

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the second respondent herein pertaining to the detention order made in BCDFGISSSV No.90/2020 dated 13.02.2020 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu namely Karan, aged about 22 years, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the detenu at liberty forthwith.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Samiullah

¶16

For Respondents: Mr.R.Prathap Kumar,

¶17

Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner is the father of the detenu, Karan, son of Elangovan, male, aged 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.90/BCDFGISSSV/2020, dated 13.02.2020 holding him 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.

¶21

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶22

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

¶23

appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶24

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.

¶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 13.02.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 27.02.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 03.03.2020. The remarks were duly received on 05.03.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 16.03.2020.

¶27

It is the contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 05.03.2020 and there was delay of 10 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 4 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 6 days in considering the representation.

¶28

In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244), the Honourable 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

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

¶31

In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321, the Honourable 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.

¶32

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 6 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.

¶33

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.90/BCDFGISSSV/2020, dated 13.02.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Karan, S/o.Elangovan, male, aged 22 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶34

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi/ssm
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai – 03.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 006
4.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law & Order) Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶35

H.C.P. No.595 of 2020 EV(CO) RMP(11/11/2020)

¶36

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

Elangovan v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elangovan v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

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

Kalaiselvi Vs State Rep. by

Banu Vs the Secretary to Government

Malar Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.Karthika Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Kowsaliya Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Selvi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its