Allowed

Senthilkumar v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC16 Jun 2021HCP/2380/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of a youth as a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the High Court held that inordinate unexplained delays in submission of remarks and consideration of representation rendered the detention illegal and quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 20.11.2020 in C.No.40/G/IS/2020 passed by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

Senthilkumar Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.06.2021

¶3

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

¶4

H.C.P.No.2380 of 2020

¶5

Senthilkumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/
Detaining Authority,
Tiruppur City,
Tiruppur District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison-Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
4.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Anupparpalayam Police Station,
Tiruppur District. .. Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 20.11.2020 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C.No.40/G/IS/2020, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's brother viz., Elambarudi, son of Rathinasamy, aged about 26 years, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶8

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

¶9

ORDER

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner is the brother of the detenu viz., Elambarudi, son of Rathinasamy, aged about 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.40/G/IS/2020 dated 20.11.2020, 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

The Detention Order in question was passed on 20.11.2020. The petitioner made a representation dated nil. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 03.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 10.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 11.01.2021.

¶16

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 10.12.2020 and there was a delay of 30 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister

¶17

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

¶18

for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 11 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 19 days in considering the representation.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 19 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.

¶23

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.40/G/IS/2020 dated 20.11.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Elambarudi, son of Rathinasamy, aged about 26 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶24

Assistant Registrar (CO) //True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

Nsd

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/
Detaining Authority,
Tiruppur City,
Tiruppur District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison-Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
4.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Anupparpalayam Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2380 of 2020
PP(CO)
GN(22/06/2021)

¶30

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

Senthilkumar v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthilkumar 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

Muniyammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its

Suguna Vs State Rep by

Sridevi Vs State Rep.by

Selvi Vs State Rep by

Selvi Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Hanifa Vs the Secretary to Government