Allowed

Sathiyavanan v. the Secrerary to the Government

Madras HC25 Jun 2021HCP/2579/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the High Court quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court held that the unexplained and inordinate delays by the detaining authority and the Government in processing the detenu's representation violated fundamental rights, mandating release.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in Memo Cr.M.P.No.27/Goonda/2020/C1 dated 03.11.2020 is set aside; the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

Sathiyavanan Vs the Secrerary to the Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.06.2021

¶2

CORAM

¶3

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

¶4

H.C.P.No.2579 of 2020

¶5

Sathiyavanan, S/o.(Late) Chandrasekar ... Petitioner / detenu versus 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District, Erode. 3.The Superintendent of Police Erode District, Erode. 4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - Coimbatore, Coimbatore District. 5.State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Kodumodi Police Station, Erode District. ... Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, relating to the petitioner detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 03.11.2020 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo Cr.M.P.No.27/Goonda/2020/C1, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner, namely, Sathiyavanan, S/o.(Late) Chandrasekar, aged 31 years, before this Court and set the petitioner at liberty from detention, now the petitioner detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶7

For Petitioner : M/s.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

[Order of the Court was made by R.PONGIAPPAN, J.]

¶11

The petitioner is the detenu viz. Sathiyavanan, son of (Late) Chandrasekar, aged about 31 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 03.11.2020 in Memo Cr.M.P.No.27/Goonda/2020/C1, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the 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 this Petition, 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 this 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 03.11.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 20.12.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 29.12.2020. 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.

¶16

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 21 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 9 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 12 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which 6 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was

¶17

inordinate delay of 10 days in considering the representation.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 12 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 10 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.

¶22

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo Cr.M.P.No.27/Goonda/2020/C1 dated 03.11.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Sathiyavanan, son of (Late) Chandrasekar, aged about 31 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

sri

¶27

¶28

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Erode District, Erode.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Erode District, Erode.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison - Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
5.State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
Kodumodi Police Station,
Erode District.
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.2579 of 2020
sr II
A.SK(29.06.2021)

¶32

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

Sathiyavanan v. the Secrerary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathiyavanan v. the Secrerary to the 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

Vinoth Kumar @ Vinoth Vs State Rep.by

Govindan @ Govindaraj Vs State Rep.by

Santhosh Pandaragiri Vs State Rep by

Valarmathi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

A.Savithriammal Vs The State

Manjula Vs the State Rep by Its