Allowed

Shanthi v. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Madras HC9 Nov 2021HCP/866/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner challenged the detention of her son as a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Supreme Court of India held that the significant delay in considering the representation violated procedural safeguards. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the detention order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 14.05.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Surya @ Kavamedu Surya, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connecti

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.11.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mrs. Justice R.HEMALATHA

¶5

H.C.P.No.866 of 2021

¶6

Santhi ...Petitioner Vs.

¶7

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

¶8

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, P-2, Otteri Police Station, Chennai.

¶10

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

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.128/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 14.05.2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Surya @ Kavamedu Surya, S/o. Saravanan, aged about 22 years, the detenu, now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the petitioner's son Surya @ Kavamedu Surya, S/o. Saravanan, aged about 22 years, the detenu herein at liberty.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶17

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Surya @ Kavamedu Surya, S/o. Saravanan, aged about 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.128/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 14.05.2021, 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. 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.

¶21

The Detention Order in question was passed on 14.05.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 01.06.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 02.06.2021. The remarks were duly received on 14.06.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 15.07.2021.

¶22

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 12 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 4 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 14.06.2021 and there was a delay of 31 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister

¶23

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

¶24

for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which, 8 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 23 days in considering the representation.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 23 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶29

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.128/BCDFGISSSV/2021 dated 14.05.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Surya @ Kavamedu Surya, S/o. Saravanan, aged about 22 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶31

True Copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

nsd

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. 3. The Inspector of Police, P-2, Otteri Police Station, Chennai. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066. 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.866 of 2021

¶37

KSM[co] NSK 15/11/2021

¶38

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

Shanthi v. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanthi 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

Chitra Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Selvaraj Vs State Rep by

Narayanan Vs State Rep by

Mrs.D.Ramya, Age 26 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Sridevi Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

D.Ramya Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its