Allowed

Sarala v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC2 Jul 2021HCP/251/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Madras High Court examined the detention of the petitioner's son under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court found inordinate and unexplained delays in processing the petitioner's representation and quashed the detention order, directing the release of the detenu.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

Sarala Vs the Secretary to Government — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 02.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.251 of 2021
Sarala .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-9
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector
Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur
3.The Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Superintendent of Police
Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison
Central Prison-II, Puzhal
Chennai District
5.State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police
Periyapalayam Police Station
Tiruvallur District .. Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner's son's detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 10.11.2020 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein made in proceedings memo in BCDFGISSSV No.55/2020, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son viz. Vignesh @ Vikki, S/o.Arumugam, aged 22 years, before this Hon'ble Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's son detained at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶7

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

¶8

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Sasikumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Vignesh @ Vikki, S/o.Arumugam, aged 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order dated 10.11.2020 in BCDFGISSSV No.55/2020, 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) 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 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 10.11.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 09.02.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 10.02.2021. The remarks were duly received on 19.02.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 27.02.2021.

¶16

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 9 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence,

¶17

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

¶18

there was an inordinate delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 19.02.2021 and there was a delay of 8 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 5 days in considering the representation.

¶19

In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 5 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 BCDFGISSSV No.55/2020, dated 10.11.2020, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Vignesh @ Vikki, S/o.Arumugam, aged 22 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

gya

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai-9 2.The Joint Secretary to Government Public, Law and Order Department Secretariat, Chennai-9 3.The District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruvallur District Tiruvallur 4.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District 5.The Superintendent of Central Prison Central Prison-II, Puzhal Chennai District 6.The Inspector of Police Periyapalayam Police Station Tiruvallur District 7.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras H.C.P.No.251 of 2021 A.SK(05.07.2021)

¶32

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

Sarala v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarala 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

S.Ravi Vs Dev Anand Vijayan

Nirmala Vs the Secretary to Government

G.Murugesan Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Parashakthi Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Aishwariya Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Puzhalvendan Vs The Additional Director General of Prisons