Allowed

Thenmozhi v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC22 Oct 2021HCP/621/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 was filed by the wife of a detenu to challenge his detention under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The Court found an unexplained and inordinate delay in the Authority's submission of remarks and the Government's consideration of the representation, violating Article 21, and set aside the detention order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order is set aside; the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detained for another case.

Thenmozhi Vs the Secretary to the Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.10.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mrs. Justice S.SRIMATHY

¶5

H.C.P.No.621 of 2021

¶6

Thenmozhi

¶7

..Petitioner/Wife of the Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶10

Chennai-600 009.

¶11

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu,

¶13

Chengalpattu District.

¶14

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶15

State represented by The Inspector of Police,

¶16

Guduvancherry Police Station, Chengalpattu District. .. 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 connection with the order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 24.03.2021 in Memo.BCDFGISSSV.No.10/2021 against the petitioner's husband Soothan @ Ramachandran, M/28 years, son of Mani, who is confined at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶18

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

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by S.SRIMATHY, J.]

¶23

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Soothan @ Ramachandran, 28 years, son of Mani. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV.No.10/2021 dated 24.03.2021, 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

The Detention Order in question was passed on 24.03.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 15.04.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 19.04.2021. The remarks were duly received on 28.04.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 04.05.2021.

¶28

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 9 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining

¶29

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

¶30

Authority, of which, 2 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 28.04.2021 and there was a delay of 6 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 Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 4 days in considering the representation.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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 4 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.

¶35

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV.No.10/2021 dated 24.03.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,Soothan @ Ramachandran, 28 years, son of Mani, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶38

//True Copy//

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

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

¶41

nsd To

¶42

The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 5. The Inspector of Police, Guduvancherry Police Station, Chengalpattu District. 6. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. MG (CO) PR (02/11/2021)

¶43

H.C.P.No.621 of 2021

¶44

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

Thenmozhi v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thenmozhi v. the Secretary to the Government

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

Rani Vs State Rep by

Sridhar Vs the Secretary to Government

Venkatesh Vs the Secretary to the Government

Murali @ Muralidharan Vs the State Rep by

Dhanabackiam Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Dhanalakshmi Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by