Madras High Court
P.Angel vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1668/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1668/2023
P.Angel .. Petitioner
vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Additional Chief Secretary
to Government, Home, Department of
Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat,
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, O/o.The Commissioner of Police
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police
PEW-Wing Anna Nagar Police Station
Anna Nagar, Chennai. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1668/2023
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in
No.341/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 31.07.2023 on the file of the 2nd
respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the detenu
Prasanna, son of Vijayakumar, aged 29 years, now confined at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, APP
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
(1)The Petitioner, wife of the detenu has filed this Petition challenging the
order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent against her husband, in
No.341/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 31.07.2023, branding the detenu as a
"Drug Offender" 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 11.09.2023. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, though the representation dated 11.09.2023,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was received by the Government on the next day, i.e., 12.09.2023 ; and
though the file has been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on
13.09.2023, the Minister concerned dealt with the file only on 19.09.2023
and the Rejection Letter prepared on 19.09.2023 was sent to the detenuon
20.09.2023. 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 11.09.2023, which was received by the Government on 12.09.2023,
was dealt with by the Minister concerned only on 19.09.2023 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and Sunday [16.09.2023 and 17.09.2023]] 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 13.09.2023
to 19.09.2023, 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.341/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 31.07.2023, 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]
21.11.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary
to Government, State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Department of
Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat,
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, O/o.The Commissioner of Police
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police
PEW-Wing Anna Nagar Police Station
Anna Nagar, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
AP
.
21.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
