Madras High Court
[email protected] vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 8 September, 2021
H.C.P(MD)No.410 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :08.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
H.C.P.(MD) No.410 of 2021
[email protected] ... Petitioner/detenu
-vs-
1. The State of Tamilnadu
represented by the Additional Cheif Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other approoriate
writ or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the entire records
connected with the detention order passed in H.S.(M) Confdl No.32/2021
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P(MD)No.410 of 2021
dated 24.02.2021 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash
the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the
detenu namely Kanthasamy @ Kannan, aged about 22 years,
S/o.Muthuramalingam, now detained at the Central Prison,
Palayamkottai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner :Mr.N.Pragalathan
For Respondents :Mr.S.Ravi
Standing counsel for the State
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the detenu, namely,
Kanthasamy @ Kannan, S/o.Muthuramalingam, aged about 22 years,,
challenging the detention order in H.S.(M) Confdl No.32/2021 dated
24.02.2021, passed by the second respondent, branding him as “Goonda”
as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that there is
no application pending in the ground case and there is no imminent
possibility of coming out on bail by the detenu and therefore, there is no
cogent material to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P(MD)No.410 of 2021
come out on bail, which shows the non-application of mind on the part of
the detaining authority. Further, the arrest and detention order was not
properly intimated to the relatives and it is against the judgment of the
Honourable Apex Court. That apart, the Tamil and English version of the
grounds of detention and the booklet differs and several pages in the
booklet are not legible and readable which caused serious prejudice to
the detenue from making effective representation to the higher authorities
and there is no cogent materials to arrive at the subjective satisfaction to
show that the activities of the detenu is prejudicial to the maintenance of
public law and order to brand him as goonda and further, there is a delay
in considering the petitioner's representation.
3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
would state that after satisfying with the materials placed by the
sponsoring authority, the detaining authority has passed the impugned
detention order and therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the
same. He would produce the proforma regarding the disposal of the
petitioner's representation and would state that even if there is any delay
in disposal of the petitioner's representation, it has not caused any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P(MD)No.410 of 2021
prejudice to the rights of the detenu. Thus, he would pray for dismissal
of this petition.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
respondents.
5.Even though the petitioner has raised the above grounds to quash
the impugned detention order, the learned counsel for the petitioner
would mainly place arguments on the ground of delay in disposal of the
petitioner's representation. In this regard, the learned counsel for the
petitioner would state that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have not been followed in
this case and there is unexplained and inordinate delay in disposal of the
petitioner's representation which would vitiate the impugned order of
detention.
6.Perusal of the proforma furnished by the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents would show that as against the
impugned detention order, the petitioner made a representation to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P(MD)No.410 of 2021
first respondent dated 09.03.2021 and it was received on 15.03.2021.
Remarks were called for on 15.03.2021 and it was received on
22.03.2021. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 22.03.2021.
The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 12.04.2021 and the
representation came to be rejected on 15.04.2021. It is seen that in
between 15.03.2021 and 22.03.2021, there was a delay of 6 days, after
excluding the Government Holidays of 2 days, there was a delay of 4
days in the I part and in between 22.03.2021 and 12.04.2021, there was a
delay of 20 days, after excluding the Government Holidays of 9 days,
there was a delay of 11 days in the II Part and totally there was a delay of
15 days in considering the petitioner's representation.
7. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the decision of the
Honourable Apex Court in the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil
Nadu and another, reported in 1999 (1) SCC 417, wherein, the Apex
Court has observed and held that it is for the Authority concerned to
explain the delay, if any, in disposal of the representation and if any delay
was caused on account of nay indifference or lapse in considering the
representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the
prisoner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P(MD)No.410 of 2021
8. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the delay of 15 days in
considering the representation of the petitioner remains unexplained by
the respondents. Hence, in our considered view, the detention order is
liable to be set aside solely on the ground of delay by following the
above decision of the Apex Court.
9. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention
order in H.S.(M) Confdl No.32/2021 dated 24.02.2021, passed by the
second respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu, namely,
Kanthasamy @ Kannan, S/o.Muthuramalingam, aged about 22 years,
who is now detained at Central Prison, Trichy, is directed to be released
forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in
connection with any other case.
[V.B.D.,J.] & [J.N.B.,J.]
08.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P(MD)No.410 of 2021
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant
concerned.
To
. The State of Tamilnadu
represented by the Additional Cheif Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P(MD)No.410 of 2021
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
and
J.NISHA BANU, J.
pm
ORDER MADE IN
H.C.P.(MD) No.410 of 2021
08.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
