Allowed

Meera v. the Principal Secretary

Madras HC29 Apr 2021HCP/2286/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a preventive detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act for procedural delay. The Court held that unexplained delays of 24 days for remarks and 9 days for consideration vitiated the order, directing the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 20.09.2020 is set aside, and the detenu Gurunathan is directed to be released forthwith.

Meera Vs the Principal Secretary — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.2286 of 2020

¶6

Meera,
W/o.Gurunathan ... Petitioner /
Wife of the detenu
versus
1.The Principal Secretary ,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore - 01.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Cuddalore New Town Circle,
Cuddalore. ... Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the accused for records relating the Detention Order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order made in Memo No.C3/D.O./108/2020 dated 20.09.2020, detaining the detenu under 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act-14/1982, as Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the Gurunathan, son of Kuppuraj, Male, aged about 37 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

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

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arasu Ganesan

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner is the wife of Gurunathan, son of Kuppuraj, aged about 37 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 20.09.2020 in Memo No.C3/D.O./108/2020, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed a counter and strongly 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 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.

¶17

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

¶18

The Detention Order in question was passed on 20.09.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 30.09.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 06.10.2020. 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.

¶19

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 30 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 6 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 24 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 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 2 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 9 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 24 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 9 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 Memo No.C3/D.O./108/2020 dated 20.09.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Gurunathan, son of Kuppuraj, Male, aged about 37 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar
sri
To
1.The Principal Secretary ,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore - 01.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Cuddalore New Town Circle,
Cuddalore.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶29

H.C.P.No.2286 of 2020

¶30

ajb[co] srg 10/06/2021

¶31

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

Meera v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera v. the Principal Secretary

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.Amsaveni Vs the State Rep by

K.Jeeva Vs the Commissioner of Police

B.Jayanthi Vs State Rep by

Shakila Banu Vs the Secretary to the Government

Vasantha Vs the Secretary to the Government

Ekambaram Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by