The Court quashed an order detaining a person as a 'Goonda' under TANGoonda Act due to inordinate and unexplained delay by authorities in considering the petitioner's representation, violating fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22.
The detention order is set aside; the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
H.C.P.NO.942 OF 2021
Dhanalakshmi
W/o.Kalyanasundaram
... Petitioner
.Vs.
PRAYER:-
Habeas Corpus 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 detention order vide Memo Cr.M.P.No.18/Goonda/2021/C1 dated 19.04.2021 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son, namely, Jeevanantham s/o.Kalyanasundaram, aged 29 years, who is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Ms.P.Sathiya For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.SRIMATHY, J]
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Jeevanantham s/o.Kalyanasundaram, aged 29 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.18/Goonda/2021/C1 dated 19.04.2021, 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.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.18/Goonda/2021/C1 dated 19.04.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Jeevanantham s/o.Kalyanasundaram, aged 29 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
| gm To |
|
|---|---|
| 1. | The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. |
| 2. | The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District, Erode. |
| 3. | The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District. |
| 4. | The Superintendent of Police, Erode District. |
| 5. | The Inspector of Police, Arachalur Police Station, Erode 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. H.C.P.NO.942 OF 2021 |
PPA(CO) PBS/02/11/2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether inordinate and unexplained delay in discharging procedural safeguards for hearing a representation sets aside the order of detention.
Whether the impugned detention order violates Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the warrant detenu is to be released forthwith.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rekha vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶31
Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244) · Who else cites this
Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to GovernmentRelied on¶32
Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government (2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145)
Tara Chand vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶33
Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dhanalakshmi
State of Tamil Nadu
P.N.Praakash
S.Srimathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
