Allowed

Murugesan v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

Madras HC25 Oct 2021HCP/809/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged detention of his son under Tamil Nadu Prisoners (Prevention of Disaffection) Act, 1982, alleging gross violation of procedural safeguards due to unexplained delays in representing himself. Court found illegal delays and quashed detention order.

What did the court decide?

Detention order in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.44/2021 dated 08.04.2021 set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless detention required for another case.

Murugesan Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.10.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.809 of 2021

¶6

Murugesan ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶9

The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Vellavedu Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

¶11

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. ...Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.44/2021 dated 08.04.2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Saravanan, S/o.Murugesan, aged about 22 years, the detenu, now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the petitioner's son Saravanan, S/o.Murugesan, aged about 22 years, the detenu herein at liberty.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioner is the father of the detenu Saravanan, S/o.Murugesan, aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.44/2021 dated 08.04.2021, 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

The Detention Order in question was passed on 08.04.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 08.05.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 11.05.2021. The remarks were duly received on 26.05.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 26.07.2021.

¶23

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 15 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining

¶24

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

¶25

Authority, of which, 5 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 26.05.2021 and there was a delay of 4 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 2 days in considering the representation.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 2 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.

¶30

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.44/2021 dated 08.04.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,Saravanan, S/o.Murugesan, aged about 22 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

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

¶36

nsd To

¶37

The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 3. The Inspector of Police, Vellavedu Police Station, Tiruvallur District. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 6. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶38

H.C.P.No.809 of 2021

¶39

AD[co] NSK 10/11/2021

¶40

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

Murugesan v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesan v. State of Tamilnadu, 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

Govindan @ Govindaraj Vs State Rep.by

T.D.Sonia Vs State Rep by

Thenmozhi Vs the Secretary to the Government

A.Murugesan Vs Superintendent of Police

Asarudhin Vs State Rep by

Devi Vs the Secretary