Allowed

Chagnaran v. State Rep by

Madras HC26 Jul 2021HCP/265/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the detention of a drug offender under the Tamil Nadu Pre-Emptive Action against Organised Crimes Act. The Supreme Court govern and High Court held that significant delays in processing the detainee representation, by the detaining authority and the government, were unexplained and violate Article 21 and 22, leading to the quashing of the detention order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 10.01.2021 is set aside. The detenu, Diparam son of Lakaram, is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required in connection with any other case.

Chagnaran Vs State Rep by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

H.C.P.No.265 of 2021

Chagnaram

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶10

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

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶12

5.The Inspector of Police, Uthiramerur Police Station, Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records from the 2^nd respondent in connection with the order in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.02/2021 dated 10.01.2021 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's cousin Diparam, son of Lakaram, aged about 24 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Premkumar

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

The petitioner is the uncle of the detenu Diparam, son of Lakaram, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.02/2021 dated 10.01.2021, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

The Detention Order in question was passed on 10.01.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 25.01.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 02.02.2021. The remarks were duly received on 02.03.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 15.04.2021.

¶24

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

¶25

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 28 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 8 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 20 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 02.03.2021 and there was a delay of 41 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 13 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 28 days in considering the representation.

¶26

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.

¶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 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.

¶29

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 20 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 28 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 B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.02/2021 dated 10.01.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Diparam, son of Lakaram, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

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

¶35

nsd

¶36

¶37