Allowed

C.Kannan v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Madras HC6 Apr 2022HCP/209/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a Habeas Corpus petition quashed a detention order under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Goondas Act 1982 due to inordinate and unexplained delays in processing the detenu's representation by the Detaining Authority and the Government.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention dated 24.05.2021 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required in connection with any other case.

C.Kannan Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Order dated : 05.04.2022 H.C.P.No.209 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.04.2022

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.209 of 2022

¶7

C.Kannan S/o.Chinnappan

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

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

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem District.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Salem Central Prison, Salem District.

¶13

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

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

1/8

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Order dated : 05.04.2022 H.C.P.No.209 of 2022

¶18

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 24.05.2021 in C.M.P.No.32/Goonda/Salem City/2021 against the detenu Natraj @ Attubai s/o.Kannan, aged 23 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Salem and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohan

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor *****

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz ., Natraj @ Attubai s/o.Kannan, aged 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.M.P.No.32/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 24.05.2021, 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.

¶24

2/8

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Order dated : 05.04.2022 H.C.P.No.209 of 2022

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly 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

¶30

3/8

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Order dated : 05.04.2022 H.C.P.No.209 of 2022

¶33

violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of

¶34

the Constitution of India.

¶35

The Detention Order in question was passed on 24.05.2021. The petitioner made a representation dated Nil. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 09.11.2021. The remarks were duly received on 19.11.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 02.12.2021.

¶36

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 9 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 2 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 19.11.2021 and there was a delay of 1 day in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, P&E after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it. Hence, there was inordinate delay of 1

¶37

4/8

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Order dated : 05.04.2022 H.C.P.No.209 of 2022

¶40

day in considering the representation.

¶41

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.

¶42

In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government (2007 (2) MWN

¶43

(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.

¶44

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.

¶45

5/8

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

Order dated : 05.04.2022 H.C.P.No.209 of 2022

¶48

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 1 day in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Home, P&E. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶49

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.M.P.No.32/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 24.05.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Natraj @ Attubai s/o.Kannan, aged 23 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶50

[P.N.P., J] [A.A.N., J] 05.04.2022

¶51

Index: Yes/No gm

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

6/8

¶54

Order dated : 05.04.2022 H.C.P.No.209 of 2022

¶55

¶56