Madras High Court
Harisha vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 October, 2023
HCP.No.1010/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1010/2023
Harisha .. Petitioner
vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
of Tirupattur, Tirupattur District.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Tirupattur.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Jolarpet Police Station
Tirupattur District. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1010/2023
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the
detention order in C3/D.O./10/2023 dated 23.05.2032 on the file of the 2nd
respondent and quash the same and produce the body of the petitioner
husband Thiru.Ilavarasan, [Male] S/o.Anandan, aged about 31 years,
confined at Central Prison, Vellore before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabakar
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 Ilavarasan, son of Anandan, aged 31
years, has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by
the 2nd respondent against her husband, in C3 D.O.No.10/2023 dated
23.05.2023, branding the detenu as a "Bootlegger" under Section 3[1] of
the 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1010/2023
(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 27.05.2023. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, though the representation, dated 27.05.2023,
the same has been received by the Government only on 28.06.2023 ; the
file has been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 30.06.2023 and the
Minister concerned dealt with the file only on 11.07.2023 and the
Rejection Letter prepared on 12.07.2023 was sent to the detenuon
13.07.2023. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1010/2023
(4)As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on
perusal of the records, we find that, on the representation of the detenu,
dated 27.05.2023, which was received by the Government only on
28.06.2023 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of
the detenu only on 11.07.2023 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on
12.07.2023. Thus, we find there is a considerable delay 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1010/2023
"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."
(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 30.06.2023
till 11.07.2023, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1010/2023
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 C3.D.O.No.10/2023 dated 23.05.2023, passed by the 2nd
respondent is quashed. The detenu Ilavarasan, S/o.Anandan, is directed
to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in
connection with any other case.
[SSSRJ] [SMJ]
11.10.2023
AP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1010/2023
To
1.The Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
of Tirupattur, Tirupattur District.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Tirupattur.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police
Jolarpet Police Station
Tirupattur District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1010/2023
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
AP
.
H.C.P.No.1010/2023
11.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
