Allowed

M.Logesh v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC14 Jul 2021HCP/126/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A habeas corpus petition challenged a detention order classifying a third party as a 'Goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court quashed the order, finding that inordinate and unexplained delays in processing the representation and considering the remarks rendered the detention illegal under Articles 21 and 22.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.40/2020 dated 16.12.2020 passed by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in conne

M.Logesh Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

H.C.P.No.126 of 2021

M.Logesh S/o.B.Mohan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by

¶10

The Additional Chief Secretary to

¶11

Government,

¶12

Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department,

¶13

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009.

¶14

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Chengalpattu District.

¶15

3.The Superintendent of Police, Gundur, Chengalpattu District – 603 002.

¶16

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶17

5.The Inspector of Police, G-7, Chunambedu Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

¶18

.. Respondents

¶19

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 impugned order of detention dated 16.12.2020 passed in BCDFGISSSV No.40/2020 passed by second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the detenu Y.Vigneshwarraj @ Vignesh S/o.Yuvaraj, aged about 31 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set him at liberty.

¶20

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

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chandrakumar For Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate [Crl.side]

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner is the friend of the detenu viz., Y.Vigneshwarraj @ Vignesh S/o.Yuvaraj, aged about 31 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.40/2020 dated 16.12.2020, 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.

¶25

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶26

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.

¶27

The learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] 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 Government Advocate [Crl.side], 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.

¶28

The Detention Order in question was passed on 16.12.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 31.12.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 25.01.2021. The remarks were duly received on 08.02.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 19.04.2021.

¶29

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 13 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 6 days were Government Holidays and hence,

¶30

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

¶31

there was an inordinate delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 08.02.2021 and there was a delay of 64 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 19 days were Government Holidays. Hence, there was inordinate delay of 52 days in considering the representation.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 45 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.

¶36

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.40/2020 dated 16.12.2020 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Y.Vigneshwarraj @ Vignesh S/o.Yuvaraj, aged about 31 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶37

¶38

-s/d-

¶39

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶40

True Copy

¶41

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶42

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

¶43