Madras High Court
Baskar vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 6 May, 2022
H.C.P.(MD) No.528 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.05.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
H.C.P.(MD) No.528 of 2022
Baskar ... Petitioner/Detenue
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruhcirappalli. ... Respondents
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 second respondent made in his
proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.28 of 2021, dated 11.06.2021 in detaining the
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.528 of 2022
detenue under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982 as a
Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the
detenue namely Baskar, S/o.Singarayar, male aged about 31 years, who is
detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him
at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Joseph Jerry
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)
The petitioner is the detenu and challenging the legality of the
impugned order of detention, dated 11.06.2021, passed by the second
respondent, under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, (Tamil Nadu Act
14 of 1982) and branding him as 'Goonda' in Detention Order No.28 of
2021, came forward to file the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.528 of 2022
2. We have heard Mr.A.Joseph Jerry, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on
record.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus
Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly focus his
argument on the ground of delay and submitted that the Detention Order
was passed on 11.06.2021. As against the same, a representation was
made dated nil and the same was received on 14.03.2022. The remarks
were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on
14.03.2022. The remarks were received on 23.03.2022, in which there is
a delay of 5 days after excluding the Government Holidays of 3 days.
Though the Deputy Secretary to Government dealt with the same on
23.03.2022, the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity and Prohibition and
Excise dealt with the same only on 04.05.2022, in which there is a delay
of 26 days after excluding the Government Holidays of 15 days and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.528 of 2022
rejection letter was sent to detenu on 04.05.2022. It is the contention of
the petitioner that there was delay of 31 days in considering the
representation.
4. 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/detenue would be sufficient to set aside the detention order.
5. In Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, [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 detention illegal. This dictum has been
followed in several Judgments consistently by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as this Court.
6. Applying the said dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, if we look into the facts of the present case, undoubtedly, there is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.528 of 2022
an inordinate and unexplained delay of 31 working days and therefore,
the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed by setting
aside the Order of Detention passed by the second respondent herein in
Cr.M.P.No.28 of 2021, dated 11.06.2021. Consequently, the detenu,
namely, Baskar, S/o.Singarayar, male aged about 31 years, who is
detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli is directed to be released
forthwith unless his presence [or] custody [or] detention is required in
connection with any other case/proceedings.
[T.R., J.] & [D.B.C., J.]
06.05.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pm/ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.528 of 2022
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:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruhcirappalli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.528 of 2022
T.RAJA, J.
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
pm/ps
H.C.P.(MD) No.528 of 2022
06.05.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
