Allowed

V.Sandhiya v. State Rep by

Madras HC1 Oct 2021HCP/538/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a Habeas Corpus petition challenging the detention of a person classified as a 'Goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court quashed the detention order due to unexplained delays by the detaining authority in submitting remarks and considering the petitioner's representation, citing Supreme Court rulings that inordinate delays vitiate procedural safeguards. The detenu wa

What did the court decide?

The detention order in C.M.P.No.18/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 20.03.2021 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

V.Sandhiya Vs State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.10.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mrs. Justice R.HEMALATHA

¶5

H.C.P.No.538 of 2021

¶6

V.Sandhiya .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State represented by

¶9

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

¶10

2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City.

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.

¶12

4.The Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem. .. Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in C.M.P.No.18/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 20.03.2021 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Vicky @ Vignesh, S/o.Ramesh, aged about 26 years, now confined at the Central Prison, Salem and set him at liberty.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Sengkodi

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Vicky @ Vignesh, S/o.Ramesh, aged about 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.M.P.No.18/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 20.03.2021, 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Habeas Corpus 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 Additional 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.

¶23

The Detention Order in question was passed on 20.03.2021. The petitioner made a representation dated nil. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 09.04.2021. The remarks were duly received on 22.04.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 04.05.2021.

¶24

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 13 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 6 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 22.04.2021 and there was a delay of 8 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 2 days were Government

¶25

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

¶26

Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 6 days in considering the representation.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 6 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.

¶31

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.M.P.No.18/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 20.03.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vicky @ Vignesh, S/o.Ramesh, aged about 26 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶34

//True Copy//

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

nsd

¶37

¶38

1.The Secretary to Government

¶39

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George,

¶40

Chennai-9.

¶41

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

¶42

2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City.

¶43

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.

¶44

4.The Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem.

¶45

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

¶46

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶47

H.C.P.No.538 of 2021

¶48

RLD (CO) B.VC (07/10/2021)

¶49

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

V.Sandhiya v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sandhiya v. State 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Prabhu Vs State Rep. by

Surendhiran Vs the State Rep.by

Chithiralingam Nadaar Vs the Secretary to Government

Rajammal Vs State Rep.by

S.Selvi Vs State Rep.by

Janaki Vs State Rep.by