Allowed

Kathun Beevi v. the State Rep by

Madras HC19 Apr 2022HCP/10/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that inordinate and unexplained delays in submitting remarks by the detaining authority and considering the representation by the Government vitiate a detention order. Consequently, the court quashed the detention and ordered the release of the detenu.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the second respondent was set aside, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with any other

Kathun Beevi Vs the State Rep by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.04.2022

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.10 of 2022

¶6

Kathun Beevi .. Petitioner/Mother of Detenue Vs.

¶7

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

¶8

The Commissioner of police, Salem City, O/o.The Commissioner of Police,

¶9

Linemedu, Salem – 636 006.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem District.

¶11

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,

¶12

Salem, Salem District. .. Respondents

¶13

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 dated 06.10.2021 passed by the second respondent in his proceedings C.M.P.No.89/Goonda/Salem City/2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son viz., Sathik, son of Jaffar, aged about 35 years, who is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Salem, as Goonda, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioner is mother of the detenu Sathik, son of Jaffar, aged about 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.M.P.No.89/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 06.10.2021, 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 06.10.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 17.11.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 18.11.2021. The remarks were duly received on 29.11.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 03.01.2022.

¶23

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 4 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 7 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 29.11.2021 and there was a delay of 4 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister

¶24

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

¶25

for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which, 1 day was Government Holiday, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 3 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 7 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 3 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.

¶30

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.M.P.No.89/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 06.10.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Sathik, son of Jaffar, aged about 35 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶31

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

nsd

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of police, Salem City, O/o.The Commissioner of Police, Linemedu, Salem – 636 006. 3. The Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem District. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶38

H.C.P.No.10 of 2022

¶39

MG(CO) SU(22/04/2022)

¶40

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

Kathun Beevi v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kathun Beevi v. the State 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

K.Lakshmi Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Gomathy, F/a 27 Years, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Manickam Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Police

Murugeshwari Vs the Secretary to Government

G.Thangavelu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Sathish @ Saleem Vs the State Rep by