Allowed

Geetha v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC22 Jun 2021HCP/167/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed Habeas Corpus against detention order passed under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 alleging procedural violation due to unexplained delays. Court quashed the detention order due to statutory delay in considering representation, directing immediate release of detenu unless required for other cases.

What did the court decide?

Detention order in B3/D.O.No.118/2020 dated 26.12.2020 set aside and detenu directed to be released forthwith unless detention required in connection with any other case.

Geetha Vs the Secretary to the Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶7

H.C.P.No.167 of 2021

¶8

Geetha ... Petitioner /Mother of the detenu

¶9

versus 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Ranipet District, Ranipet - 1. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District, Ranipet. 4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore - 2. 5.The Inspector of Police, Walajapet Police Station, Ranipet District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 26.12.2020 in B3/D.O.No.118/2020 against the petitioner's son Santhakumar @ Santha Samiyar, Male, aged 44 years, S/o.Sathiyamoorthy, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthil Vel For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

[Order of the Court was made by R.PONGIAPPAN, J.] Since date has already been fixed in this case for disposal in Crl.M.P.No.6218 of 2021, this matter has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ taken up today.

¶12

The petitioner is the mother of Santhakumar @ Santha Samiyar, son of Sathiyamoorthy, aged about 44 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 26.12.2020 in B3/D.O.No.118/2020, 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Though several grounds have been raised in this Petition, 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 Government Advocate (Crl. Side) opposed this 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 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.

¶16

The Detention Order in question was passed on 26.12.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 16.01.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 20.01.2021. The remarks were duly received on 04.02.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 08.02.2021.

¶17

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 15 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 6 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 9 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 04.02.2021 and there was inordinate delay of 1 day in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department.

¶18

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enforced by the Courts of law and their rigour cannot be

¶19

allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities undertaken by the detenu.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 9 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 1 day 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.

¶23

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in B3/D.O.No.118/2020 dated 26.12.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Santhakumar @ Santha Samiyar, son of Sathiyamoorthy, aged about 44 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar //True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

sri

¶28

¶29