Allowed

Pazhanivel v. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC7 Jun 2021HCP/1183/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order of the petitioner's son under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court quashed the order, holding that inordinate and unexplained delays in submitting remarks and considering the representation rendered the detention illegal.

What did the court decide?

The detention order Rs.No.C2/11349/2020 dated 20.06.2020 is set aside; the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

Pazhanivel Vs the Additional Chief Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.06.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.1183 of 2020

¶6

Pazhanivel .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
5.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Gingee, Villupuram District. .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records pertaining to the order of detention dated 20.06.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.C2/11349/2020 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's son detenu Subash, son of Pazhanivel, aged about 24 years, detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prasadh For Respondents : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶12

The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Subash, son of Pazhanivel, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Rc.No.C2/11349/2020 dated 20.06.2020, holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. 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.

¶16

The Detention Order in question was passed on 20.06.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 26.06.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 02.07.2020. The remarks were duly received on 26.08.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 04.09.2020.

¶17

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 55 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 17 days were Government Holiday and hence there was an inordinate delay of 38 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 26.08.2020 and there was a delay of 8 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister

¶18

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

¶19

for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 2 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 6 days in considering the representation.

¶20

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.

¶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 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.

¶23

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 38 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority 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.

¶24

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Rc.No.C2/11349/2020 dated 20.06.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Subash, son of Pazhanivel, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶26

nsd

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
5.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Gingee, Villupuram District.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1183 of 2020
AK II(CO)
CB(30/06/2021)

¶30

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

Pazhanivel v. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pazhanivel v. the Additional Chief 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

P.S.Murthi Vs P.S.Vijay

Kumar Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Police

Seenu @ Seenuvasan Vs State through Its

Ameerbeebi Vs the Secretary to the Government

E.Manikandan Vs The State rep by its

Shoba Vs the Additional Secretary to Government of India