Madras High Court
Shanthi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 December, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1640/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1640/2023
Shanthi .. Petitioner
vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Additional Chief Secretary
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police
G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison-II
Puzhal, Chennai 600 066. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1640/2023
the detention order passed in Memo No.311/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated
12.07.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of
1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the
petitioner's son Thiru Surya @ Kavamedu Surya, son of Saravanan, aged
about 24 years the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai
before this Court and set the petitioner's son Thiru Surya @ Kavamedu
Surya son of Saravanan, aged about 24 years the detenu herein at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, APP assisted by
Mr.Aravind C.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
(1)The Petitioner, mother of the detenu has filed this Petition challenging the
order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent against her son, in
No.311/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 12.07.2023, branding the detenu as a
"Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
(2)Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds
in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he confined
his arguments only to the ground of delay in considering the
representation of the detenu, dated 07.08.2023. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, though the representation dated 07.08.2023,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was received by the Government on 09.08.2023 ; and though the file has
been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 10.08.2023, the Minister
concerned dealt with the file only on 17.08.2023 and the Rejection Letter
prepared on 17.08.2023 was sent to the detenu on the same day. It is the
further submission of the learned counsel that this inordinate delay in
considering the representation remains unexplained and the same vitiates
the detention order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for
the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.
(3)Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents.
(4)As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on
perusal of the records, we find that, the representation of the detenu,
dated 07.08.2023, which was received by the Government on 09.08.2023,
was dealt with by the Minister concerned only on 17.08.2023 and the
Rejection Letter was prepared on the same day. Thus, we find there is a
considerable delay of four days [after excluding the intervening Saturday
and Sunday and Public Holiday [12.08.2032, 13.08.2023 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15.08.2023] in considering the representation of the petitioner. This
inordinate delay in considering the detenu's representation remain
unexplained.
(5)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 inordinate
delay. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further
detention of the detenu.
(6)In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal's case (cited
supra), it has been held as follows:
"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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(7)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, here the inordinate delay from 10.08.2023
to 17.08.2023, has not been properly explained at all.
(8)Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala -
2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, the Hon'ble 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 the detenu,
should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without
any avoidable delay.
(9)In the light of the above fact and law, 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 detenu.
(10)Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention
order in No.311/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 12.07.2023, passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2nd respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty,
forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other
case.
[SSSRJ] [SMJ]
05.12.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police
G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison-II
Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
AP
.
05.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
