Allowed

Murugeshwari v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC19 Apr 2022HCP/3/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Habeas Corpus petition challenged a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court quashed the order, finding that gross procedural violations occurred due to inordinate and unexplained delays in considering the detenu's representation, violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 16.09.2021 in Cr.M.P.No.30/G/2021/E1 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

Murugeshwari Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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.3 of 2022

¶6

Murugeshwari ... Petitioner/Mother of the Detenue

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶9

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶10

Secretariat, Fort St.George,

¶11

Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Coimbatore,

¶13

Coimbatore District.

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore,

¶15

Coimbatore District.

¶16

4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison-Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

¶17

5.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Pollachi Town East Police Station,

¶18

Coimbatore District. .. Respondents

¶19

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records, relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 16.09.2021 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo Cr.M.P.No.30/G/2021/E1, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son viz., Manikandan @ Thiruttu Mani, S/o.Allimuthu, aged 21 years, before this Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's son detained at the Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶20

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

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner is mother of the detenu Manikandan @ Thiruttu Mani, S/o.Allimuthu, aged 21 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.30/G/2021/E1 dated 16.09.2021, 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

The Detention Order in question was passed on 16.09.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 29.12.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 03.01.2022. The remarks were duly received on 20.01.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 18.04.2022.

¶30

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 17 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which, 6 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 20.01.2022 and there was a delay of 88 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which, 28 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 60 days in considering the representation.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 11 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 60 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.

¶35

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

¶36

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.30/G/2021/E1 dated 16.09.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Manikandan @ Thiruttu Mani, S/o.Allimuthu, aged 21 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

nsd

¶42

¶43