Allowed

Shanthi v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC8 Jun 2021HCP/301/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Habeas Corpus petition challenged the detention of Kalyanaraman as a 'Goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court quashed the detention order due to unexplained and inordinate delays in submitting remarks and considering the representation made by the detenu's family, holding such delays vitiated the procedure.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention under Cr.M.P.No.01/G/2021/E1 dated 11.02.2021 is set aside; the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required in connection with any other case.

Shanthi Vs the Secretary to the Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.06.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.301 of 2021

¶6

Shanthi ... Petitioner /Wife of the detenue
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Mettupalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 11.02.2021 in Cr.M.P.No.01/G/2021/E1 against Kalyanaraman, aged about 54 years, son of Rangasamy, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj 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 wife of the detenu viz., Kalyanaraman, aged about 54 years, son of Rangasamy. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.01/G/2021/E1 dated 11.02.2021, 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.

¶13

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.

¶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 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.

¶16

The Detention Order in question was passed on 11.02.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 20.02.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 23.02.2021. 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.

¶17

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holiday and hence there was an inordinate delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the

¶18

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

¶19

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 14 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 27 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 5 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 27 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 Cr.M.P.No.01/G/2021/E1 dated 11.02.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Kalyanaraman, aged about 54 years, son of Rangasamy, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶25

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

¶26

nsd

¶27

¶28

1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Mettupalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore.
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.301 of 2021
rsi[co]
srg 11/06/2021

¶29

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

Shanthi v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanthi v. the Secretary 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

Ameerbeebi Vs the Secretary to the Government

E.Manikandan Vs The State rep by its

Shoba Vs the Additional Secretary to Government of India

B.Santhiya Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Devi Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

D.Thamizharasi Vs State Rep by