Allowed

S.Jaya v. District Collector and

Madras HC27 Apr 2021HCP/1932/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged her son's detention under Tamil Nadu Pre-Repressive Measures Act via writ petition. Court quashed detention order due to inordinate and unexplained delays in submitting remarks and considering representation, citing Supreme Court precedents on procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

Order of detention set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless required for other case.

S.Jaya Vs District Collector and — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.04.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.1932 of 2020

¶6

S.Jaya ...Petitioner .Vs. 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu. 2.The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. 5.The Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Town Police Station, I/o.Chengalpattu Taluk Circle, Chengalpattu District. ...Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the first respondent culminating with the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.30/2020 dated 14.09.2020 detaining the petitioner's son and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu viz., Silambu @ Silambarasan, son of Samamurthy, male, aged about 30 years, before this Court, now detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set him at liberty.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jaikumar For Respondents :^{Mr.R.Prathap Kumar,} Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Silambu @ Silambarasan, son of Samamurthy, male, aged about 30 years. The detenu has been detained by the first respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.30/2020 dated 14.09.2020, 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.

¶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 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

The Detention Order in question was passed on 14.09.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 14.10.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 20.10.2020. The remarks were duly received on 05.11.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 17.11.2020.

¶17

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 16 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 6 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the

¶18

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

¶19

remarks were received 05.11.2020 and there was a delay of 11 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 4 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 7 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 10 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 7 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

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.30/2020 dated 14.09.2020, passed by the first respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Silambu @ Silambarasan, son of Samamurthy, male, aged about 30 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

nsd

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu. 2.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. 5.The Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Town Police Station, I/o.Chengalpattu Taluk Circle, Chengalpattu District. 6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.M.Jaikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.25866 H.C.P.No.1932 of 2020 LN(CO) RN(03/05/2021)

¶31

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

S.Jaya v. District Collector and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Jaya v. District Collector and

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

Shruthi Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Ammu Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Shanthi Vs the Secretary to Government

Uma Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by

Munusamy Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Rajeswari Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by