Allowed

Padhma v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Madras HC16 Aug 2021HCP/455/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition challenging the detention of Manikandan under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court quashed the detention order due to an inordinate and unexplained delay of 27 days in considering the petitioner's representation, citing Supreme Court precedents on procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

The detention order passed by the second respondent on 17.02.2021 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detained in connection with another case.

Padhma Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.08.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

H.C.P.No.455 of 2021

Padhma

W/o.Narasimman

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

represented by the Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶12

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, of Ranipet District,

¶14

Office of the District Collector and

¶15

District Magistrate,

¶16

Ranipet District, Ranipet – 1.

¶17

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

¶18

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶19

5.The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Taluk Police Station, Ranipet District. .. Respondents

¶20

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in B3/D.O.No.11/2021 dated 17.02.2021 and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Manikandan @ Mani S/o.Narasimman, aged about 34 years, the detenu, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Gopikrishnan For Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate [Crl.side]

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Manikandan @ Mani S/o.Narasimman, aged about 34 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in B3/D.O.No.11/2021 dated 17.02.2021, 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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

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.

¶29

The Detention Order in question was passed on 17.02.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 16.03.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 18.03.2021. The remarks were duly received on 30.04.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 04.05.2021.

¶30

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 42 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 15 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 27 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 30.04.2021 and thereafter, the

¶31

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

¶32

representation was considered by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it. Hence, there was inordinate delay of 27 days in considering the representation.

¶33

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

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

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

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 27 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶37

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in B3/D.O.No.11/2021 dated 17.02.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Manikandan @ Mani S/o.Narasimman, aged about 34 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶40

//True Copy//

¶41

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶42

¶43

¶44

1.The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶45

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

¶46

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, of Ranipet District, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet District, Ranipet – 1. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet, Ranipet District.

¶47

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶48

5.The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Taluk Police Station, Ranipet District.

¶49

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.455 of 2021

¶50

AJS (CO) B.VC (17/08/2021)

¶51

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

Padhma v. State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padhma v. 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

Mahesh Kumar Vs Government of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

M.Parameswari Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

A.Jancy Rani Vs the Secretary to Government

V.Sudha Vs State Rep by

Selvam@Selvakumar Vs the Secretary to Government

Malliga Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by