Allowed

Aadhimoolam v. the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government

Madras HC26 Jul 2021HCP/173/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ of habeas corpus challenging a detention order issued under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court quashed the order due to inordinate and unexplained delays in processing the representation by the detaining authority and the detaining government. The Court directed the immediate release of the detenu unless required in another case.

What did the court decide?

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

Aadhimoolam Vs the Additional Chief… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 26.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

H.C.P.No.173 of 2021

Aadhimoolam

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Prohibition and Excise Department (Home) Secretariat, Fort St. George

¶11

Chennai-9

¶12

The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai

¶13

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Coimbatore

¶14

The Inspector of Police (Law & Order) V-1 Villivakkam Police Station Chennai ...Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records in connection with the order of 2^nd respondent dated 04.12.2020 in Memo No.497/BCDFGISSSV/2020 against the petitioner's son viz., Arunpandian, aged about 32 years, S/o.Adhimoolam, as a goonda u/s 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the body of the said detenu, now lodged in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.P.C.Santhosh Kumar

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Arunpandian, aged about 32 years, S/o.Adhimoolam. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order dated 04.12.2020

¶21

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

¶22

in No.497/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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 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 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.

¶26

The Detention Order in question was passed on 04.12.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 15.12.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 17.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 24.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 11.01.2021.

¶27

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 24.12.2020 and there was a delay of 16 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 7 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 9 days in considering the representation.

¶28

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

¶29

In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [1731 (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 detenu.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 9 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.

¶33

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.497/BCDFGISSSV/2020, dated 04.12.2020, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Arunpandian, aged about 32 years, S/o.Adhimoolam, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶34

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶35

True Copy

¶36

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶37

gya

¶38

¶39