Allowed

Rajammal v. State Rep.by

Madras HC1 Oct 2021HCP/560/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the Court held that an order of detention under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act was illegal due to an inordinate and unexplained delay by the Detaining Authority in recording remarks and by the Minister in considering the petitioner's representation.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in C.M.P.No.12/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 17.03.2021 is set aside and the detenu Sathish is directed to be released forthwith.

Rajammal Vs State Rep.by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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.560 of 2021

¶6

Rajammal .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State represented by

¶9

1.The Secretary to Government

¶10

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶11

Secretariat,

¶12

 Fort St.George,

¶13

 Chennai-9.

¶14

2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.12/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 17.03.2021 on the
file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and
direct the respondent to produce the detenu Sathish,
S/o.Krishnan, aged about 25 years, before this Court, now
confined at the Central Prison, Salem and set him at liberty.

¶18

For Petitioner:Ms.S.Sengkodi

¶19

For Respondents:Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,

¶20

Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Sathish,
S/o.Krishnan, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained
bythesecondrespondentbyhisorderin
C.M.P.No.12/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 17.03.2021, 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

4. 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.

¶28

5. The Detention Order in question was passed on
17.03.2021. 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.

¶29

6. 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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

10. 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.

¶36

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in C.M.P.No.12/Goonda/Salem City/2021
dated 17.03.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside.
The detenu, viz., Sathish, S/o.Krishnan, aged about 25 years, is
directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is
required in connection with any other case.

¶37

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶38

// True Copy //

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

nsd

¶41

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

¶42

To

¶43

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶44

 Fort St.George,

¶45

 Chennai-9.

¶46

2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶51

H.C.P.No.560 of 2021

¶52

VSN II(CO)
B.VC (06/10/2021)

¶53

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

Rajammal v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajammal 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

Statutes considered

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

V.Sandhiya Vs State Rep by

S.Selvi Vs State Rep.by

Janaki Vs State Rep.by