Allowed

Janarthanan v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep

Madras HC23 Apr 2021HCP/1842/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a father challenging the detention of his son under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court quashed the detention order, holding that unexplained delays of three days in submitting remarks and ten days in considering the representation violated procedural safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in Memo No.343/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 02.09.2020 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.04.2021

¶3

Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

¶4

H.C.P.No.1842 of 2020

¶5

Janarthanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
V-3, J.J.Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent herein in Memo No.343/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 02.09.2020 and quash the same and produce the detenu Karthik @ Mittai Karthik, aged about 23 years, son of Janarthanan, TPDA No.2120 now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sarath Chandran For Respondents :^{Mr.R.Prathap Kumar,} Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶8

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

¶9

ORDER

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Karthik @ Mittai Karthik, aged about 23 years, son of Janarthanan. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.343/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 02.09.2020, 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.

¶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 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 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 02.09.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 06.10.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 08.10.2020. The remarks were duly received on 13.10.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 28.10.2020.

¶16

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays 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 13.10.2020 and there was a delay of 15

¶17

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

¶18

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 5 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 10 days in considering the representation.

¶19

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.

¶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 3 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 10 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.

¶23

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.343/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 02.09.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Karthik @ Mittai Karthik, aged about 23 years, son of Janarthanan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

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

¶28

nsd
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
V-3, J.J.Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1842 of 2020
rld[co]
srg 30/04/2021

¶29

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

Janarthanan v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janarthanan v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep

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

R.Venkatadri Vs State Rep by

S.Kavitha Vs The District Collector

S.Thangaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

Chandra Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Ramamoorthy Vs the Secretary to Government

Dilli Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu