Allowed

Chinarasu v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC22 Feb 2021HCP/1370/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court held that inordinate and unexplained delays by the detaining authority in submitting remarks and by the Government in considering the petition render the detention order illegal and liable to be quashed. The detenue was directed to be released forthwith.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention dated 16.07.2020 is set aside and the detenue is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case.

Chinarasu Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 22.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

H.C.P.No.1370 of 2020

¶6

Chinarasu ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9

¶7

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tirupathur District, Tirupathur

¶8

3.The Superintendent of Police Tirupathur

¶9

4.The Superintendent of Prison Special Prison for Women Vellore, Vellore District

¶10

5.The Inspector of Police Vaniyambadi Taluk Police Station Tirupathur District ... Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records relating to the detention order in C3/D.O.No.26/2020 dated 16.07.2020, passed by the 2^nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's mother Maheswari, W/o.Srinivasan, aged about 39 years, now confined in Special Prison for Women, Vellore before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty.

¶12

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

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶15

[Order of the Court was made by V.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶16

The petitioner is the son of the detenue viz. Maheswari, W/o.Srinivasan, aged about 39 years,. The detenue has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order in C3/D.O.No.26/2020 dated 16.07.2020 holding her 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed his counter affidavit and 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 detenue and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

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

¶21

The Detention Order in question was passed on 16.07.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 03.08.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 07.08.2020. The remarks were duly received on 25.09.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 06.11.2020.

¶22

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 47 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 14 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 33 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 25.09.2020 and there was a delay of 40 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 15 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 25 days in considering the representation.

¶23

In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble 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 detenue.

¶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 detenue 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 Hon'ble 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 33 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 25 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

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

¶28

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C3/D.O.No.26/2020 dated 16.07.2020, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenue viz. Maheswari, W/o.Srinivasan, aged about 39 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶31

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gya
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirupathur District, Tirupathur.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tirupathur.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Special Prison for Women,
Vellore, Vellore District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Vaniyambadi Taluk Police Station,
Tirupathur District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1370 of 2020
ss[co]
srg 22/02/2021

¶32

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

Chinarasu v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinarasu v. State of Tamil Nadu

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

C.Maran Vs the Inspector of Police

Kanagaraj Vs State Rep. by

Lakshmi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Vinith Baid Vs Union of India Rep by

V.Mageshwari Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

N.Pandima Devi Vs the Superintendent of Police