Allowed

M.Mallika v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC28 Oct 2024HCP(MD)/789/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court found an unexplained delay of four days in considering the detenu's representation, violating Constitutional mandatory principles and Article 22(5), and quashed the detention order.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention in M.H.S Confdl No. 56/2024 was set aside, and the detenu Murugan was directed to be released forthwith unless detention was required for any other case.

M.Mallika Vs The Additional Chief Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P(MD)No.789 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 28.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.(MD) No.789 of 2024

M.Mallika

... Petitioner

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶12

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: 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 detention order passed in M.H.S Confdl No. 56/2024, dated 02.04.2024 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's husband i.e., Murugan, S/o.Patchaikan, aged

¶15

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

¶16

1/8

¶17

H.C.P(MD)No.789 of 2024

¶18

about 52 years, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar

¶21

Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Murugan, S/o.Patchaikan, aged about 52 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order in M.H.S Confdl No. 56/2024, dated 02.04.2024 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the

¶26

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

¶27

2/8

¶28

H.C.P(MD)No.789 of 2024

¶29

ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 15.05.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 15.05.2024, the same was received by the Government on 16.05.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 31.05.2024 There is a delay of 4 days in Column Nos.6 to 9A and 10 to 12 of the Proforma dated 01.10.2024 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 .

¶30

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions,

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

3/8

¶34

H.C.P(MD)No.789 of 2024

¶35

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 15.05.2024, which was received by the Government on 16.05.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 31.05.2024. 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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

4/8

¶39

H.C.P(MD)No.789 of 2024

¶40

In the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme

¶41

Court in Rajammal 's case, it has been held as follows:

¶42

"It is a constitutional obligation of the

¶43

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."

¶44

As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in

¶45

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.

¶46

Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State

¶47

of Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC , the Honourable Supreme Court has

¶48

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',

¶49

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

¶50

5/8

¶51

H.C.P(MD)No.789 of 2024

¶52

in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India clearly shows the concern of

¶53

the makers of the Constitution that the representation made on behalf of the detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.

¶54

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.

¶55

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order in M.H.S Confdl No. 56/2024, dated 02.04.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Murugan, S/o.Patchaikan, aged about 52 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶56

(C.V.K., J.) (R.P, J.) 28.10.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No PNM

¶57

6/8

¶58

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

¶59

H.C.P(MD)No.789 of 2024

¶60

¶61