Allowed

P.Bhavani v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its

Madras HC17 Aug 2021HCP/386/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Habeas Corpus petition challenging a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the Court held that an unexplained delay of 11 days in considering the detenu's representation violated statutory procedural safeguards. Consequently, the detention order was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be released unless required for another case.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.08/2021 dated 21.02.2021 set aside and the detenu directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

P.Bhavani Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.08.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

H.C.P.No.386 of 2021

P.Bhavani

W/o.Palanivel

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

represented by its

¶12

Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department Home,

¶13

Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

2.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.

¶15

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

¶16

4.The Jail Superintendent Central Prison, Thiruchirapalli.

¶17

5.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Jeyamkondam, Ariyalur District. .. Respondents

¶18

Habeas Corpus 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 21.02.2021 in Cr.M.P.No.8/2021 against the detenu Manikandan S/o.Palanivel, aged 23 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Trichy and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate [crl.side]

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J]

¶23

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Manikandan S/o.Palanivel, aged 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.08/2021 dated 21.02.2021, holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

The Detention Order in question was passed on 21.02.2021. The petitioner made a representation dated Nil. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 26.03.2021. The remarks were duly received on 19.04.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 20.04.2021.

¶28

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 23 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 12 days were Government holidays and hence, there was a delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 19.04.2021 and thereafter, the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition

¶29

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

¶30

and Excise Department considered the representation after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it. Hence, there was inordinate delay of 11 days in considering the representation.

¶31

In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244), the

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶36

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.08/2021 dated 21.02.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Manikandan S/o.Palanivel, aged 23 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

1.The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department Home, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur. 4.The Jail Superintendent Central Prison, Thiruchirapalli. 5.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Jeyamkondam, Ariyalur District. 6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶45

H.C.P.No.386 of 2021

¶46

PA (CO) PR (18/08/2021)

¶47

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

P.Bhavani v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Bhavani v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Sudha Vs State Rep by

Selvam@Selvakumar Vs the Secretary to Government

Malliga Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

M/s.Arun Excello City Developers Private Limited Vs Shanthi

R.Rubavathi Vs the Secretary to the Govt

B.Bindu Vs the Secretary to Government