Allowed

Sugu v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Madras HC6 Jul 2021HCP/2572/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judge P.N. Prakash quashed a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 due to inordinate and unexplained delays in considering the petitioner's representation, holding that such delays violate fundamental rights and require the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

The detention order passed on 05.12.2020 was set aside and the detenu S.Gunasekaran @ Guna was directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required in another case.

Sugu Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.2572 of 2020

¶6

Sugu .. Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police/ Detaining Authority, City Police Office, Huzur Road, Coimbatore District. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District. 4.The Inspector of Police, B-2, R.S. Puram Police Station, Coimbatore District. .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order vide Memo C.No.71/G/IS/2020 dated 05.12.2020, passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son viz., S.Gunasekaran @ Guna, son of Sugu, aged about 21 years, who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan For Respondents Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, : Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is the father of the detenu S.Gunasekaran @ Guna, son of Sugu, aged about 21 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.71/G/IS/2020 dated 05.12.2020, 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

The Detention Order in question was passed on 05.12.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 7 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 9 days in considering the representation.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.71/G/IS/2020 dated 05.12.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., S.Gunasekaran @ Guna, son of Sugu, aged about 21 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

nsd To

¶30

1.The Secretary,

¶31

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶32

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

¶33

2.The Commissioner of Police/ Detaining Authority,

¶34

City Police Office, Huzur Road, Coimbatore District.

¶35

3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
B-2, R.S. Puram Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2572 of 2020
SR II(CO)
GN(13/07/2021)

¶36

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

Sugu v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugu v. State of Tamil Nadu 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

Panchalai Vs the Secretary to Government

Muniyammal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Girija Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home

Mohammed Sulthan @ Shafeek Vs the State by

Kamala Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Ramu Vs the Secretary to the Government