Allowed

Shantha v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC21 Jun 2021HCP/67/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a detention order under Tamil Nadu Acts of 1949 and 1982. The Court found inordinate and unexplained delays in processing representations by the detaining authority and the government, holding the detention illegal and ordering the release of the detenu.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in Memo No.445/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 28.10.2020 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

Shantha Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.06.2021

¶3

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

¶4

H.C.P.No.67 of 2021

¶5

Shantha .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/
Greater Chennai,
Chennai.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai.
4.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kolathur Police Station,
Chennai. .. Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 28.10.2020 in Memo No.445/BCDFGISSSV/2020 against the petitioner's son Krishnakanth @ Kisan, aged about 30 years, son of Sivakumar, who is confined at 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 forthwith.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶8

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

¶9

ORDER

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Krishnakanth @ Kisan, aged about 30 years, son of Sivakumar. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.445/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 28.10.2020, 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

The Detention Order in question was passed on 28.10.2020. The petitioner made a representation 08.01.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 12.01.2021. The remarks were duly received on 20.01.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 08.02.2021.

¶16

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 4 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 20.01.2021 and there was a delay of 14 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the

¶17

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

¶18

Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 4 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 10 days in considering the representation.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 4 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 10 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.

¶23

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.445/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 28.10.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Krishnakanth @ Kisan, aged about 30 years, son of Sivakumar, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS IX)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

nsd

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/
Greater Chennai,
Chennai.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Kolathur Police Station,
Chennai.
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.67 of 2021
MG(CO)
GN(30/06/2021)

¶31

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

Shantha v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantha 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

Statutes considered

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

Johnpetti Vs the Secretary to Government

Manjula Vs The Home Secretary (Prison)

K.Rajamalli Kuppusamy Vs State Rep by