Allowed

Shanthi v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC26 Apr 2021HCP/1903/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition for habeas corpus challenging a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Goondas Act. The Court held that inordinate and unexplained delays in submitting remarks to the government and considering the petitioners representation violated procedural safeguards and quashed the detention order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 01.09.2020 was set aside, and the detenu Manikandan was directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

Shanthi Vs the Secretary to Government — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 26.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.1903 of 2020

¶7

Shanthi Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu (Home)
Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2 The District Collector and District Magistrate
Vellore District
Vellore
3 The Superintendent
Central Prison, Vellore
4 The Superintendent of Police
Vellore District, Vellore
5 The Inspector of Police
Virinchipuram Police Station
Vellore District Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records relating to the impugned order C3/D.O.No.78/2020 dated 01.09.2020 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenu, viz., Manikandan @ Dappa Mani, S/o Velayutham, Hindu, aged about 24 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶9

For petitioner Mr. G. Vinodh Kumar

¶10

For respondents Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

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

¶14

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz. Manikandan @ Dappa Mani, aged 24 years, S/o.Velayutham. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order dated 01.09.2020 in C3/D.O.No.78/2020, 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

The Detention Order in question was passed on 01.09.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 22.09.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 25.09.2020. The remarks were duly received on 06.10.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 06.11.2020.

¶19

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 5 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 06.10.2020 and there was a delay of 31 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

¶20

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

¶21

Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 21 days in considering the representation.

¶22

In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2011 (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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 21 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.

¶26

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C3/D.O.No.78/2020, dated 01.09.2020, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Manikandan @ Dappa Mani, aged 24 years, S/o.Velayutham, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶27

gya

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

1 The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu (Home)
Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2 The District Collector and District Magistrate
Vellore District
Vellore
3 The Superintendent
Central Prison, Vellore
4 The Superintendent of Police
Vellore District, Vellore
5 The Inspector of Police
Virinchipuram Police Station
Vellore District
6 The Joint Secretary to Government
Public, Law and Order Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
7 The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1903 of 2020
GMR(CO)
GN(27/04/2021)

¶31

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

Shanthi v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanthi 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

Chandra Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Ramamoorthy Vs the Secretary to Government

Dilli Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

R.Ragul Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Shruthi Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Ammu Vs the State of Tamilnadu