Allowed

Ramachandiran v. the Secretary to Govt

Madras HC20 Jul 2021HCP/189/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the High Court quashed an order of preventive detention under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 due to inordinate and unexplained delays in considering the detenu's representation, finding this violated fundamental rights.

What did the court decide?

The detention order passed on 08.01.2021 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

Ramachandiran Vs the Secretary to Govt — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.189 of 2021

¶6

Ramachandiran

¶7

S/o.Kannan .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore – 9.

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Vellore.

¶12

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.

¶13

5.The Inspector of Police, Ariyur Police Station, Vellore District. .. Respondents

¶14

Habeas Corpus 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 detention order passed by the second respondent in C3/D.O.No.004/2021 dated 08.01.2021 against the petitioner's son, Appu @ Umamaheswaran, S/o.Ramachandiran, aged 29 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Trichy and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji For Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate [Crl.side]

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Appu @ Umamaheswaran, S/o.Ramachandiran, aged 29 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C3/D.O.No.004/2021 dated 08.01.2021, 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

The learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] 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 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.

¶24

The Detention Order in question was passed on 08.01.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 22.01.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 29.01.2021. The remarks were duly received on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 15.04.2021.

¶25

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 60 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 18 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 42 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 31.03.2021 and there was a delay of 11

¶26

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

¶27

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 48 days in considering the representation.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 42 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 6 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.

¶32

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C3/D.O.No.004/2021 dated 08.01.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Appu @ Umamaheswaran, S/o.Ramachandiran, aged 29 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

¶38

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

¶39