Allowed

Chitra v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Madras HC8 Nov 2021HCP/290/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a detainee held under the Madras Prevention of Nuisances Act (Goondas) Act. The court quashed the detention order due to inordinate and unexplained delays (11 days for remarks and 25 days for consideration) in processing the detenu's representation, citing Supreme Court precedents on procedural safeguards under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.05/2021 dated 07.02.2021 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detained for another case.

Chitra Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.11.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mrs. Justice R.HEMALATHA

H.C.P.No.290 of 2021

Chitra .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary to Government,

¶9

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George,

¶10

Chennai-9.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,

¶14

Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.

¶15

5.The Inspector of Police, D-1, Chengalpattu Police Station, Chengalpattu District. .. Respondents

¶16

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's husband Siva @ Pattaravakkam Siva, son of Santhiyappan, male, aged about 41 years, is presently lodged in the Central Prison, Puzhal at Chennai and has been detained under the Act 14/82 as a "Goonda" vide detention order dated 07.02.2021 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein, made in BCDFGISSSV No.05/2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶17

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

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajavelu For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶19

ORDER

¶20

[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶21

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Siva @ Pattaravakkam Siva, S/o.Santhiyappan, aged 41 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.05/2021 dated 07.02.2021, 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.

¶22

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶23

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.

¶24

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 Additional Public Prosecutor, 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.

¶25

The Detention Order in question was passed on 07.02.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 13.02.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 18.02.2021. The remarks were duly received on 05.03.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 15.04.2021.

¶26

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a

¶27

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

¶28

delay of 15 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 4 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 05.03.2021 and there was a delay of 38 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 25 days in considering the representation.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 25 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶33

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.05/2021 dated 07.02.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Siva @ Pattaravakkam Siva, son of Santhiyappan, aged 41 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶36

//True Copy//

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

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

¶39

nsd