Allowed

Saritha v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC25 Jun 2021HCP/288/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order of preventive detention. The High Court set aside the detention order due to inordinate and unexplained delays of 7 days in submitting remarks and 13 days in considering the representation by the minister, violating procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention in Rc.No.C2/22362/2020 dated 09.10.2020 by the second respondent is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

Saritha Vs the Secretary to Government — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.06.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶2

H.C.P.No.288 of 2021

¶3

Saritha, W/o.Anand

¶4

W/o.Anand ... Petitioner /
Wife of the detenu
versus
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore
5.The Inspector of Police,
Kottakuppam (Law & Order) Police Station,
Villupuram District. ... Respondents

¶5

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 09.10.2020 in Rc.No.C2/22362/2020 against the petitioner's husband Anand, Male, 35 years, S/o.Arumugam, who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.V.L.Nehru For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

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

¶10

The petitioner is the wife of Anand, son of Arumugam, aged about 35 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 09.10.2020 in Rc.No.C2/22362/2020, 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has filed a counter and strongly 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.

¶14

The Detention Order in question was passed on 09.10.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 23.01.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 29.01.2021. The remarks were duly received on 09.02.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 27.02.2021.

¶15

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 4 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 09.02.2021 and there was a delay of 18 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inordinate delay of 13 days in considering the representation.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 13 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.

¶20

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Rc.No.C2/22362/2020 dated 09.10.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Anand, son of Arumugam, aged about 35 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

sri To

¶26

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore

¶32

5.The Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam (Law & Order) Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶33

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.288 of 2021
KC CO
A.SK(29.06.2021)

¶34

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

Saritha v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saritha v. the Secretary to 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

Sathiyavanan Vs the Secrerary to the Government

Valarmathi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

A.Savithriammal Vs The State