Allowed

Latha v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Madras HC20 Apr 2021HCP/1720/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This habeas corpus petition challenged the validity of a detention order due to procedural delays in considering a representation. The Court held that unexplained delays vitiated the detention order and quashed it, directing the release of the detenu.

What did the court decide?

The detention order was set aside and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required for another case.

Latha Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.04.2021

¶2

CORAM

¶3

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

¶4

H.C.P.No.1720 of 2020

¶5

Latha,
W/o.Venkatesan ... Petitioner /
Mother of the detenu
versus
1.State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by The Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police,
T-16 Nasaratpet Police Station,
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-II,
Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. ... Respondents

¶6

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 Memo No.302/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 17.08.2020 passed by the second respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Vijay, son of Venkatesan, aged about 24 years the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner's son Vijay, son of Venkatesan, aged about 24 years the detenu herein set him at liberty.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

[Order of the Court was made by R.PONGIAPPAN, J.]

¶11

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, Vijay, son of Venkatesan, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 17.08.2020 in Memo No.302/BCDFGISSSV/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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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.

¶15

The Detention Order in question was passed on 17.08.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 17.09.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 19.09.2020. The remarks were duly received on 23.09.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 06.11.2020.

¶16

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 1 day was Government Holiday 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 23.09.2020 and there was a delay of 42 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 10 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ delay of 32 days in considering the representation.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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 32 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.

¶21

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.302/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 17.08.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Vijay, son of Venkatesan, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

sri To

¶27

1.The Secretary,