Allowed

Tmt.Dolly Kumari v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

Madras HC21 Jan 2022HCP/835/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a detenu challenging a detention order under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the representation made by the detenu rendered the detention illegal, thus quashing the order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 16.04.2021 in S.C.No.06/2021 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

Tmt.Dolly Kumari Vs the State of Tamil… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.01.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶5

H.C.P.NO. 835 OF 2021

Dolly Kumari

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

¶10

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶11

The District Collector and The District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶13

The Inspector of Police, Hudco Police Station, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶14

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records of the second respondent herein pertaining to the detention order made in S.C.No.06/2021 dated 16.04.2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Mr.Arjun Prasad @ Ajay Kumar @ Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadhave, son of Ram Nandhan Prasad, aged about 33 years, now detained in Central Prison, Salem, before this Hon'ble Court and set the detenu at liberty forthwith.

¶17

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

¶18

For petitioner : Mr.M.P.Saravanan For respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

[R.HEMALATHA, J.]

¶21

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Mr.Arjun Prasad @ Ajay Kumar @ Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadhave, S/o.Ram Nandhan Prasad, aged 33 years. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order dated 16.04.2021 in S.C.No.06/2021, 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed his counter affidavit and 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 violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

The Detention Order in question was passed on 16.04.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 20.05.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 24.05.2021. The remarks were duly received on 22.06.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and

¶26

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

¶27

passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 09.08.2021.

¶28

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 29 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 8 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was a delay of 21 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 22.06.2021 and there was a delay of 48 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 15 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an unexplained delay of 33 days in considering the representation.

¶29

In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

In Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in [1980 (2) SCC 321], the Hon'ble 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.

¶32

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 21 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and an unexplained delay of 33 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.

¶33

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in S.C.No.06/2021, dated 16.04.2021, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu Mr.Arjun Prasad @ Ajay Kumar @ Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadhave, male, aged 33 years, S/o. Ram Nandhan Prasad, is directed to be

¶34

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

¶35

released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶38

//True Copy//

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

mtl

¶41

To 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The District Collector and The District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 4. The Inspector of Police, Hudco Police Station, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem. 6. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶42

H.C.P.No.835 of 2021

¶43

KV(CO) RLP(24/01/2022)

¶44

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

Tmt.Dolly Kumari v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.Dolly Kumari v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

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

M.Suresh Vs the Superintensent of Police

Saravanan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Samiyappan, Aged 42 Years, Vs State Rep. by Its

Kanaga Vs the District Collector and District Magistrate

S.Manish Kumar Gaurav Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

S.Brijpal Singh Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government