Allowed

Ramakrishnan v. the State of Tamilnadu, Represented by

Madras HC23 Jul 2021HCP/2569/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted a writ petition filed by a father seeking release of his son detained under the Tamil Nadu Control of Habitual Offenders Act, 1982. The Court held that inordinate, unexplained delays in submitting remarks and considering the representation violated procedural safeguards and fundamental rights, quashing the detention order and directing immediate release.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 02.12.2020 is set aside and the detenu, Selvaraj, is directed to be released forthwith unless required for other cases.

Ramakrishnan Vs the State of Tamilnadu… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 23.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.NO.2569 OF 2020

¶6

Ramakrishnan .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9

¶9

The District Collector and District Magistrate O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate Erode District, Erode

¶10

The Superintendent of Police Erode, Erode District

¶11

The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Bhavani, Erode District

¶12

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Coimbatore Coimbatore District .. Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings Cr.M.P.No.33/Sexual Offender/2020/C1 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son viz., Selvaraj, aged about 40 years, S/o.Ramakrishnan (who is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore) as SEXUAL OFFENDER before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vinoth

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶18

The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Selvaraj, aged about 40 years, S/o.Ramakrishnan. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order dated 02.12.2020 in Cr.M.P.No.33/Sexual Offender/2020/C1, holding him to be a "SEXUAL OFFENDER", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

The Detention Order in question was passed on 02.12.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 21.12.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 22.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 19.01.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 04.02.2021.

¶23

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 28 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining

¶24

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

¶25

Authority, of which 12 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 16 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 19.01.2021 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 5 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 11 days in considering the representation.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 16 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 11 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.

¶30

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.33/Sexual Offender/2020/C1, dated 02.12.2020, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Selvaraj, aged about 40 years, S/o.Ramakrishnan, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

gya

¶36

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

¶37

To
1.	The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-9
2.	The Joint Secretary to Government Public, Law and Order Department Secretariat, Chennai-9
3.	The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai
4.	The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
5.	The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Erode, Erode Distirct.
6.	The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
7.	The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.The Distirct Collector, and District Magistrate, Erode District, Erode.
8.	The Superintendent of Police, Erode, Erode District.

¶38

H.C.P.No.2569 of 2020

¶39

NRI(CO) CS/26/07/2021

¶40

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

Ramakrishnan v. the State of Tamilnadu, Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnan v. the State of Tamilnadu, Represented 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

Renganthan, M/30 Vs State Rep by

Ranganathan Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Tis

Selvam Vs the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its

Saraswathi Vs The Additional Deputy General of Prisons

Mohammed Musamil Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

M.Aysha Parveen Vs The State Rep. by its