Allowed

Sanjala v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC14 Jun 2021HCP/69/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Habeas Corpus petition filed by the wife of the detenu because the detention order was vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delays in submitting remarks and considering her representation against the detention under the Madras Goondas Act.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 27.11.2020 is set aside and the detenu Balaji is directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.06.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶2

H.C.P.No.69 of 2021

¶3

Sanjala, W/o.Balaji

¶4

W/o.Balaji ... Petitioner / Wife of the detenu versus 1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066. 4.The Inspector of Police, T-13, Kundrathur Police Station, Chennai - 600 069. ... Respondents

¶5

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order memo No.487/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 27.11.2020 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely, Balaji, son of Shanmugam, Hindu, aged about 38 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

[Order of the Court was made by R.PONGIAPPAN, J.]

¶10

The petitioner is the wife of Balaji, son of Shanmugam, aged about 38 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 27.11.2020 in No.487/BCDFGISSSV/2020, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶11

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.

¶12

Though several grounds have been raised in this Petition, 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.

¶13

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) opposed this 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.

¶14

The Detention Order in question was passed on 27.11.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 08.12.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 11.12.2020. The remarks were duly received on 19.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 11.01.2021.

¶15

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 2 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 19.12.2020 and there was a delay of 21 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which 7 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was

¶16

inordinate delay of 14 days in considering the representation.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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 14 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.

¶21

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.487/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 27.11.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Balaji, son of Shanmugam, aged about 38 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

sri

¶27

¶28

1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶29

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

¶30

2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police
(Goondas Section),
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
T-13, Kundrathur Police Station,
Chennai - 600 069.
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.69 of 2021
RK (CO)
A.SK(06.07.2021)

¶31

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

Sanjala v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjala 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

B.Santhiya Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Devi Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Shanthi Vs the Secretary to the Government

Periyanayaki Vs The State rep by its

Tmt.Pechiammal Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Kothandabani Vs The Home Secretary