Allowed

Muniyammal v. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its

Madras HC15 Jun 2021HCP/378/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed detention order under TN Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act due to inordinate unexplained delays in submitting remarks (17 days) and government consideration (15 days) in disposal of representation regarding detenu's detention.

What did the court decide?

Set aside detention order and release detenu forthwith unless required for another case.

Muniyammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.378 of 2021

¶7

Muniyammal,
W/o.Vinayagam ... Petitioner /
Mother of the detenu
versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department (Home),
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Detaining Authority,
Office of the District Collector,
Kancheepuram District - 631 501.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District - 631 501.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai - 600 066.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Uthiramerur Village,
Kancheepuram District - 603 406. ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detenu's detention order passed by the second respondent vide BCDFGISSSV No.61/2020 dated 15.10.2020 and set aside the same and produce the detenu Ajith @ Ajithkumar, son of Vinayagam, Male, aged about 24 years, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.T.K.S.Bharathy Shri For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner is the mother of Ajith @ Ajithkumar, son of Vinayagam, aged about 24 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 15.10.2020 in BCDFGISSSV No.61/2020, 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 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.

¶17

The Detention Order in question was passed on 15.10.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 23.11.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 28.11.2020. The remarks were duly received on 18.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 11.01.2021.

¶18

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 20 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 3 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 17 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 18.12.2020 and there was a delay of 22 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of

¶19

which 7 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 15 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 17 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 15 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 BCDFGISSSV No.61/2020 dated 15.10.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Ajith @ Ajithkumar, son of Vinayagam, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

sri

¶28

¶29

The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department (Home), Chennai - 600 009.

¶30

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

¶31

The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Detaining Authority,
Office of the District Collector,
Kancheepuram District - 631 501.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District - 631 501.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai - 600 066.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Uthiramerur Village,
Kancheepuram District - 603 406.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.M/s.T.K.S.Bharathy Shri, Advocate SR.No.28003
H.C.P.No.378 of 2021
RK(CO)
GMY(17/06/2021)

¶32

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

Muniyammal v. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniyammal v. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its

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

Sanjala Vs the Secretary to Government

Periyanayaki Vs The State rep by its

Tmt.Pechiammal Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Suguna Vs State Rep by

Sridevi Vs State Rep.by

Vinodh Vs the State Rep.by