Allowed

T.Kavitha v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC20 Jul 2021HCP/2317/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition, the Madras High Court quashed an order of preventive detention alleging 'Goonda' status due to gross procedural violations. The court held that unexplained delays in submitting remarks and considering the petitioners representation rendered the detention illegal, necessitating immediate release.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required for another case.

T.Kavitha Vs the Secretary to Government — Bail and Remand | 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.2317 of 2020

T.Kavitha

..Petitioner

Vs.

The Secretary to Government,

¶10

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶11

Fort St.George,

¶12

Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Detaining Authority, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶15

The Additional Superintendent, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶16

The Inspector of Police-cumSponsoring Authority,

¶17

Oragadam Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondents

¶18

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records from the 2^nd respondent in connection with the order in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.60/2020 dated 13.10.2020 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's son viz., Hemanath @ Suriya, son of Tamizharasu, aged about 22 years, now confined in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶19

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

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Hemanath @ Suriya, son of Tamizharasu, aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.60/2020 dated 13.10.2020, 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

The Detention Order in question was passed on 13.10.2020. The petitioner made a representation 07.11.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 24.11.2020. The remarks were duly received on 18.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 09.01.2021.

¶29

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a

¶30

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

¶31

delay of 24 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 6 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 18 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 18.12.2020 and there was a delay of 22 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, 9 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 13 days in considering the representation.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 18 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 13 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.

¶36

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.60/2020 dated 13.10.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Hemanath @ Suriya, son of Tamizharasu, aged about 22 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶37

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶38

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶39

nsd

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Detaining Authority, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 4. The Additional Superintendent, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai. 5. The Inspector of Police-cumSponsoring Authority,

¶43

Oragadam Police Station, Chennai. 6. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.2317 of 2020

¶44

SR-II(CO) RGA(26/07/2021)

¶45

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

T.Kavitha v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Kavitha 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

Tamilselvi@Eniya Vs the Secretary to the Government

Saratha Vs the District Magistrate and

Ranganayagi Vs State Rep. by

Maheswari Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Manimegalai Vs State Rep.by

N.Omana Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by