Dismissed

Durga v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC2 Nov 2020HCP/810/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the High Court quashed a detention order passed under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 against the petitioner's husband. The Court held that unexplained delays in disposing of the representation rendered the detention illegal and violated fundamental rights.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 16.03.2020 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required in another case.

Durga Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.11.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P. No. 810 of 2020

¶6

Durga .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs
1. State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by The Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai City,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 66.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, K-5, Peravallore Police Station, Chennai – 600 082. .. Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.190/BCDFGISSSV/2020, dated 16.03.2020 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Shahul Hameed, S/o. Saleem, aged about 28 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner's husband Shahul Hameed, S/o. Saleem, aged about 28 years, the detenu herein at liberty.

¶10

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Prabhudoss

¶11

For Respondents:Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

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

¶15

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Shahul Hameed, S/o. Saleem, aged about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.190/BCDFGISSSV/2020, dated 16.03.2020 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

The Detention Order in question was passed on 16.03.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 17.06.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 23.06.2020. The remarks were duly received on 29.06.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 23.07.2020.

¶20

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 29.06.2020 and there was a delay of 23 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 6 days were

¶21

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

¶22

Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 17 days in considering the representation.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 17 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.

¶27

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.190/BCDFGISSSV/2020, dated 16.03.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Shahul Hameed, S/o. Saleem, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶28

mmi/ssm To

¶29

1.The Secretary,

¶30

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

¶31

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

¶32

2.The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 66. 4.The Inspector of Police, K-5, Peravallore Police Station, Chennai – 600 082 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. H.C.P. No. 810 of 2020

¶33

SAI(CO) RMP(03/12/2020)

¶34

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

Durga v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

Archana Vs the Secretary to the Government

Mageshwari Vs the Secretary to the Government

Nagaraj Vs the Secretary to Government

Sugumar Vs the Secretary to the Government

Swaminathan Vs State Rep by

Mariammal Vs Apurva Varma IAS