Allowed

Ramamoorthy v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC23 Apr 2021HCP/1867/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the detention of Manikandan under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court focused on alleged procedural violations, specifically unexplained delays in the Detaining Authority submitting remarks (28 days) and the Minister considering the representation (5 days). Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that such delays rendered the detention illegal.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 03.09.2020 in proceedings C3/D.O./94/2020 is set aside. The detenu, Manikandan, is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required in another case.

Ramamoorthy Vs the Secretary to… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.1867 of 2020

¶6

Ramamoorthy,
S/o.Balaraman ... Petitioner/
Cousin Brother of the detenu
versus
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison - Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
5.State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
PEW - Cuddalore Police Station,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents

¶7

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

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, relating to the petitioner's cousin brother detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 03.09.2020 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings C3/D.O./94/2020, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's cousin brother, namely, Manikandan, son of Krishnamoorthi, aged 32 years before this Court and set the petitioner's cousin brother at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's cousin brother detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sasikumar

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is the cousin brother of the detenu, Manikandan, son of Krishnamoorthi, aged about 32 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 03.09.2020 in proceedings C3/D.O./94/2020, holding him to be a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2(b) 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 Additional Public Prosecutor 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 Additional Public Prosecutor 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 Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

The Detention Order in question was passed on 03.09.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 05.10.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 06.10.2020. The remarks were duly received on 10.11.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 17.11.2020.

¶19

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 35 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 7 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 28 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 10.11.2020 and there was a delay of 6 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 1 day was Government Holiday, hence, there was inordinate delay of 5 days in considering the representation.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 28 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 5 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.

¶24

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

¶25

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in proceedings C3/D.O./94/2020 dated 03.09.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Manikandan, son of Krishnamoorthi, aged about 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

sri
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison - Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
PEW - Cuddalore Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

¶30

7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶31

H.C.P.No.1867 of 2020

¶32

AK-II(CO) RN(23/04/2021)

¶33

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

Ramamoorthy v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramamoorthy v. the Secretary to Government

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

Dilli Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

Janarthanan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep