Allowed

Annakili v. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC5 Jul 2021HCP/34/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Goondas Act. The court held that inordinate and unexplained delays in submitting remarks and considering the petitioner's representation violated procedural safeguards, necessitating the release of the detenu unless otherwise detained for another case.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in Memo No.509/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 15.12.2020 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case

Annakili Vs the Additional Chief… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.NO.34 OF 2021

¶6

Annakili ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police
(Goondas Section),
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison – II, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Chennai – 600 109. ..Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the 2^nd respondent in Memo No.509/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 15.12.2020 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of petitioner's son viz., Manikandan @ Bottle Mani, son of Annamalai, aged about 29 years, detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Raj Prabhu 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 Manikandan @ Bottle Mani, son of Annamalai, aged about 29 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.509/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 15.12.2020, 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 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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 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.

¶16

The Detention Order in question was passed on 15.12.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 22.01.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 25.01.2021. The remarks were duly received on 01.02.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 27.02.2021.

¶17

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 4 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 01.02.2021 and there was a delay of 25 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 6 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 19 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 4 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 19 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 Memo No.509/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 15.12.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Manikandan @ Bottle Mani, son of Annamalai, aged about 29 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

nsd

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police
(Goondas Section),
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison – II, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Chennai – 600 109.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
6. The District Magistrate and Collector,
Chennai.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.34 of 2021
RLD(CO)
KKV/09/07/2021

¶31

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

Annakili v. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annakili v. the Additional Chief 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

R.Parashakthi Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Aishwariya Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Sarala Vs the Secretary to Government

Panchalai Vs the Secretary to Government

Muniyammal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Girija Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home