Allowed

Maheswari v. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Madras HC20 Jul 2021HCP/2544/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a writ of Habeas Corpus challenging a detention order under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court quashed the order due to inordinate and unexplained delays in both submitting remarks and rejecting the petitioner's representation, citing precedents requiring strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order in Memo No.474/BCDFGISSSV/2020 set aside and the detenu Manikandan directed to be released forthwith.

Maheswari Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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.2544 of 2020

¶6

Maheshwari .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶9

Fort St.George,

¶10

Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶12

The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Against Women and Children, North Zone, Greater Chennai Police,

¶13

Chennai – 600 001.

¶14

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.

¶15

The Inspector of Police, W-12, All Women Police Station, Harbour Range, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶16

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 Memo No.474/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 20.11.2020 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's son Manikandan, son of Sakkarai, aged about 27 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.T.C.Ravichandran

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Manikandan, son of Sakkarai, aged about 27 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.474/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 20.11.2020, holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

The Detention Order in question was passed on 20.11.2020. The petitioner made a representation 17.12.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 21.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 24.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 11.01.2021.

¶27

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 3 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining

¶28

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

¶29

Authority, of which, there was no Government Holiday and hence there was an inordinate delay of 3 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 24.12.2020 and there was a delay of 16 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 7 days were Government Holiday, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 9 days in considering the representation.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 3 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.

¶34

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.474/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 20.11.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Manikandan, son of Sakkarai, aged about 27 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶39

nsd

¶40

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

¶41

To 1. The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. 3. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Against Women and Children, North Zone, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai – 600 001. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066. 5. The Inspector of Police, W-12, All Women Police Station, Harbour Range, 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.2544 of 2020

¶42

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

¶43

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

Maheswari v. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheswari 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

Tamilselvi@Eniya Vs the Secretary to the Government

Saratha Vs the District Magistrate and

Ranganayagi Vs State Rep. by

Manimegalai Vs State Rep.by

T.Kavitha Vs the Secretary to Government

N.Omana Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by