Allowed

Mottai Mani @ Manikandan v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC15 Oct 2024HCP(MD)/564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court quashed a detention order under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 on the ground that an unexplained delay of four days in considering the detenu's representation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in P.D.No.05/2024 dated 05.04.2024 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required for any other case.

Mottai Mani @ Manikandan Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P(MD)No.564 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.564 of 2024

¶7

Mottai Mani @ Manikandan

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶11

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur..

¶12

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli..

¶13

The Superintendent, District Jail, Pudukottai.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent made in his proceedings in P.D.No.05/2024, dated 05.04.2024 in detaining the detenu

¶16

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

¶17

1/8

¶18

H.C.P(MD)No.564 of 2024

¶19

u/s.2(f) of the T.N.Act 14 of 1982 as a GOONDA and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue namely Moottai Mani @ Manikandan, S/o. Sivasankar, aged 35 years, male, now detained at District Jail, Pudukottai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.G.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi

¶22

Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner is the detenu viz., Moottai Mani @

¶25

Manikandan, S/o. Sivasankar, aged 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order in P.D.No.05/2024, dated 05.04.2024 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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8

¶28

H.C.P(MD)No.564 of 2024

¶29

ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the

¶30

representation of the petitioner, dated 07.05.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 07.05.2024, the same was received by the Government on 17.05.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 01.06.2024 There is a delay of 4 days in Column Nos.6 to 9A and 10 to 12 of the Proforma dated 13.09.2024 in considering the petitioner's representation. The said delay of 4 days in considering the representation remains unexplained and the same vitiates the impugned detention order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417 .

¶31

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions,

¶32

submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order. It is also stated that even if there is any delay in disposal of the representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

¶33

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

¶34

3/8

¶35

H.C.P(MD)No.564 of 2024

¶36

As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the petitioner is dated 07.05.2024, which was received by the Government on 17.05.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 01.06.2024. As per the proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of 4 days in Column Nos.6 to 9A and 10 to 12 in considering the representation of the petitioner and we find that the said delay remains unexplained.

¶37

It is trite law that the representation should be very expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. From the records produced, we find that no acceptable explanation has been offered for the delay of 4 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.

¶38

In the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajammal 's case, it has been held as follows:

¶39

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

¶40

4/8

¶41

H.C.P(MD)No.564 of 2024

¶42

"It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words "as soon as may be " in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest."

¶43

As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited Rajammal 's case, number of days of delay is immaterial and what is to be considered is whether the delay caused has been properly explained by the authorities concerned. But, in the instant case, the inordinate delay of 4 days has not been properly explained.

¶44

Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC , the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is a history of insistence on procedural safeguards. The expression 'as soon as may be', in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India clearly shows the concern of the makers of the Constitution that the representation made on behalf of

¶45

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

¶46

5/8

¶47

H.C.P(MD)No.564 of 2024

¶48

the detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.

¶49

In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of delay on the part of the Government in disposing of the representation of the petitioner.

¶50

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order in P.D.No.05/2024, dated 05.04.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Moottai Mani @ Manikandan, S/o. Sivasankar, aged 35 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶51

(C.V.K., J.) (R.P, J.) 15.10.2024

¶52

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No PNM

¶53

6/8

¶54

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

¶55

H.C.P(MD)No.564 of 2024

¶56

¶57