Allowed

Dhanalakshmi v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Madras HC15 Nov 2021HCP/433/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the Madras High Court quashed a detention order issued under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act. The Court held that inordinate and unexplained delays in processing the detainee’s representation and submitting remarks rendered the detention order illegal.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 10.12.2020 in S.C.No.11/2020 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required in another case.

Dhanalakshmi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶7

H.C.P.NO.433 OF 2021

¶8

Dhanalakshmi

¶9

.. Petitioner/Wife of detenue

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary to the Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George,

¶12

Chennai-600 009.

¶13

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, O/o.District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶14

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

¶15

4. The Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

¶16

5. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District.

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records
relating to the detention order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the
second respondent in his proceedings S.C.No.11/2020 and quash

¶19

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

¶20

the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the
petitioner's husband viz., Shanmugam, son of Ganapathi, aged
about 37 years, (who is presently undergoing detention in the
Central Prison, Salem), before this Court and set him at
liberty.

¶21

For Petitioner:Mr.C.Prabakaran

¶22

For Respondents:Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,
Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Shanmugam, son
of Ganapathi, aged about 37 years. The detenu has been detained
by the second respondent by his order in S.C.No.11/2020 dated
10.12.2020, 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.

¶26

2. 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.

¶27

3. 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.

¶28

4. 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

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

5. The Detention Order in question was passed on
10.12.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 01.03.2021.
Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the
Detaining Authority on 02.03.2021. The remarks were duly
received on 09.03.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered
the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's
representation on 15.04.2021.

¶32

6. 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 Holidays and hence
there was an inordinate delay of 5 days in submitting the
remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the
remarks were received on 09.03.2021 and there was a delay of 34
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, 11 days were
Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 23
days in considering the representation.

¶33

7. 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.

¶34

8. 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.

¶35

9. 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.

¶36

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

¶37

10. 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 23
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.

¶38

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in S.C.No.11/2020 dated 10.12.2020,
passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Shanmugam, son of Ganapathi, aged about 37 years, is directed to
be released forthwith unless his detention is required in
connection with any other case.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶41

// True Copy //

¶42

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶43

nsd

¶44

To

¶45

1. The Secretary to the Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶46

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, O/o.District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶47

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

¶48

4. The Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

¶49

5. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District.

¶50

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

¶51

6. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
 Public, Law and Order Department,
 Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶52

7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶53

+1cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.58574

¶54

H.C.P.No.433 of 2021

¶55

GJ(CO)
RLP(17/11/2021)

¶56

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

Dhanalakshmi v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanalakshmi v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

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

Gunashankari Vs the Secretary to the Government

D.Valarmathi Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Jegan Raj Vs State of Tamil Nadu

A Vijayalakshmi Vs State by

Dipin @ Dinesh Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Palaniammal Vs the Lieutenant Governor