Allowed

Ramya v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by

Madras HC30 Apr 2021HCP/247/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the wife of a detenu. Quashing a Tamil Nadu Act detention order passed on 09.09.2020 due to unexplained delays in submitting remarks and considering the representation, the court directed the release of the detenu unless detained for another case.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 09.09.2020 was set aside and the detenu Rajkumar was directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

Ramya Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶6

H.C.P.NO.247 OF 2021

¶7

Ramya, W/o.Rajkumar ... Petitioner/ Wife of the detenu

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶10

The District Collector and

¶11

District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirupathur District, Tirupathur-635 601.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Tirupathur, Tirupathur District.

¶13

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶14

The Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station, Tirupathur District. ... Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in C3/D.O.No.37/2020 dated 09.09.2020 passed by the second respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Rajkumar, son of Muthappan, aged about 23 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore before this Court and set the petitioner's husband Rajkumar, son of Muthappan, aged about 23 years, the detenu herein at liberty.

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Gopi Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner is the wife of Rajkumar, son of Muthappan, aged about 23 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 09.09.2020 in C3/D.O.No.37/2020, 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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.

¶24

The Detention Order in question was passed on 09.09.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 28.09.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 21.10.2020. The remarks were duly received on 06.11.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 17.11.2020.

¶25

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 16 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining

¶26

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

¶27

Authority, of which 4 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 12 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 06.11.2020 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 3 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 8 days in considering the representation.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 12 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 8 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.

¶32

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C3/D.O.No.37/2020 dated 09.09.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Rajkumar, son of Muthappan, aged about 23 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

sri

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

The Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Tirupathur District, Tirupathur-635 601.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Tirupathur, Tirupathur District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Vellore,
Vellore District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Kandili Police Station,
Tirupathur 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.
H.C.P.No.247 of 2021
SS(CO)
CS/05/05/2021

¶41

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

Ramya v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramya v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by

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

Meera Vs the Principal Secretary

Ekambaram Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

S.Pachayappan Vs The Principal Secretary

S.Poornima Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Gomathi Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

R.Akila Vs the Secretary to the Government