Allowed

Valarmathi v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Madras HC25 Jun 2021HCP/2563/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a detenu condemned as a bootlegger. The court held that the unexplained and inordinate delays in considering the detenu's representation rendered the detention order illegal.

What did the court decide?

Set aside detention order D.O.No.135/2020-C2 dated 08.12.2020 and directed the detenu to be released forthwith.

Valarmathi Vs the State of Tamilnadu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.06.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.2563 of 2020

¶6

Valarmathi .. Petitioner/Wife of the Detenue

¶7

Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai. 4.The Inspector of Police, P.E.W. Thiruvannamalai Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. 5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the detention made in D.O.No.135/2020-C2 dated 08.12.2020 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai, the second respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set the detenu Murugesan, son of Balakrishnan, aged about 54 years, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore, at liberty forthwith.

¶9

For Petitioner : r.R.Balakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Murugesan, son of Balakrishnan, aged about 54 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent in D.O.No.135/2020-C2 dated 08.12.2020, holding him to be a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

The Detention Order in question was passed on 08.12.2020. The petitioner made a representation 21.01.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 22.01.2021. The remarks were duly received on 08.02.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 15.04.2021.

¶18

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 16 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 6 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 08.02.2021 and there was a delay of 63 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the

¶19

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

¶20

Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 20 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 43 days in considering the representation.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 43 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.

¶25

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.135/2020-C2 dated 08.12.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Murugesan, son of Balakrishnan, aged about 54 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar (CS-VII)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

nsd

¶31

¶32

1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶33

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

¶34

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶35

3.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶36

4.The Inspector of Police,
P.E.W. Thiruvannamalai Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
5.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Vellore.
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.2563 of 2020
SS(CO)
GN(28/06/2021)

¶37

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

Valarmathi v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valarmathi v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

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

Vinoth Kumar @ Vinoth Vs State Rep.by

Govindan @ Govindaraj Vs State Rep.by

Santhosh Pandaragiri Vs State Rep by

Sathiyavanan Vs the Secrerary to the Government

A.Savithriammal Vs The State

Manjula Vs the State Rep by Its