Allowed

Chellappan v. the Principal Secretary to the Government

Madras HC22 Nov 2021HCP/1029/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Habeas Corpus petition challenging the detention order holding the petitioner as a 'Goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court allowed the petition, quashing the detention order due to inordinate and unexplained procedural delays in considering the petitioner's representation, holding such delay vitiates the legality of the detention.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 09.04.2021 was set aside and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

Chellappan Vs the Principal Secretary to the Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶5

H.C.P.No.1029 of 2021

¶6

Chellappan S/o.Sengeni

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

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

¶10

The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner Office Building, No.132, Commissioner Office Building,

¶11

EVK Sampath Road, Vepery,

¶12

Periyamet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 007.

¶13

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,

¶14

Puzhal, Chennai.

¶15

The Inspector of Police, K-3 Amanjikarai Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondents

¶16

Habeas Corpus 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 No.101/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 09.04.2021 passed by the second respondent under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Chellappan s/o.Sengeni, aged 49 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Hussaini Basha

¶18

For Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by R.HEMALATHA, J]

¶21

The petitioner/detenu viz., Chellappan s/o.Sengeni, aged 49 years, has been detained by the second respondent by his order in 101/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 09.04.2021, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly 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.

¶25

The Detention Order in question was passed on 09.04.2021. The petitioner made a representation dated 04.05.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 05.05.2021. The remarks were duly received on 11.05.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 07.06.2021.

¶26

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 3 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 11.05.2021 and there was a delay of 25 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 9 days were Government

¶27

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

¶28

holidays. Hence, there was inordinate delay of 16 days in considering the representation.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶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

10.In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 3 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 16 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, 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 101/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 09.04.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Chellappan s/o.Sengeni, aged 49 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶34

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner Office Building, No.132, Commissioner Office Building, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Periyamet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 007. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Inspector of Police, K-3 Amanjikarai Police Station, Chennai. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1029 of 2021

¶42

GPI(CO) RGA(25/11/2021)

¶43

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

Chellappan v. the Principal Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chellappan v. the Principal Secretary to the 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

Sakthivel Vs State Rep.by

D.Ampili Vs the Secretary to Government

Amsavalli Vs the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary

Gowthami Vs the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu

Birudha Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Its

P.Bharaniga Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government