Allowed

Johnpetti v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC21 Jun 2021HCP/61/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Habeas Corpus petition held that unexplained delays in considering representation vitiated detention order. Detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 set aside and detenu directed to be released forthwith unless required for other case. Court relied on Supreme Court holdings on procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention order set aside; detenu Nasar directed to be released forthwith unless detention required in other case.

Johnpetti Vs the Secretary to Government — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.06.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.61 of 2021

¶6

Johnpetti .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/
Detaining Authority,
Tiruppur City,
Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
4.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Tiruppur South Police Station,
Tiruppur District. .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 09.10.2020 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C.No.34/S.O./IS/2020, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son viz., Nasar, son of Muhamed Basha, aged about 30 years, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith from Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Nasar, son of Muhamed Basha, aged about 30 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.34/S.O./IS/2020 dated 09.10.2020, 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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 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.

¶16

The Detention Order in question was passed on 09.10.2020. The petitioner made a representation 09.01.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 12.01.2021. The remarks were duly received on 22.01.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 04.02.2021.

¶17

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 4 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 22.01.2021 and there was a delay of 12 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the

¶18

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

¶19

Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 4 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 8 days in considering the representation.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 8 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.

¶24

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.34/S.O./IS/2020 dated 09.10.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Nasar, son of Muhamed Basha, aged about 30 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

nsd

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/
Detaining Authority,
Tiruppur City,
Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Tiruppur South Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.61 of 2021
MG(CO)
GN(30/06/2021)

¶32

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

Johnpetti v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johnpetti v. the Secretary to Government

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

Barani Vs the Govt of Tamilnadu, Rep by Its

S.P.Lakshmi Vs the Commissioner of Police

B.Saraswathi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Shantha Vs the Secretary to Government

Manjula Vs The Home Secretary (Prison)

K.Rajamalli Kuppusamy Vs State Rep by