Madras High Court
K.Devi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 April, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.65 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.65 of 2024
K.Devi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by the Additional Chief
Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in detention order in
M.H.S.Confdl. No.128/2023, dated 07.10.2023, on the file of the second
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.65 of 2024
respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce
the body of the petitioner's husband, namely, Karuppasamy, son of Poolpandi,
aged about 30 years, now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before
this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Karuppasamy, son of
Poolpandi, aged about 30 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl. No.128/2023, dated 07.10.2023,
holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil
Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus
petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that
there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the
petitioner, dated Nil. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
though the representation was received by the Government on 25.10.2023 and
the rejection letter was sent to the detenu only on 03.11.2023. There is a
delay of four days in considering the petitioner's representation. The said
delay of four days in considering the representation remains unexplained and
the same vitiates the impugned detention order. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1
SCC 417.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions,
submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring
Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order
and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order. It is also stated
that even if there is any delay in disposal of the representation, it has not
caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for
dismissal of the habeas corpus petition
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
and on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the petitioner
was received by the Government on 25.10.2023 and the rejection letter was
sent to the detenu only on 03.11.2023. As per the proforma submitted the by
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of four days in
considering the representation of the petitioner and we find that the said delay
remains unexplained.
6. 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 delay of four days.
Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the
detenu.
7. In the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Rajammal's case, it has been held as follows:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"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."
8. 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, in the instant case, the inordinate delay of four
days has not been properly explained.
9. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of
Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, the Honourable 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable
delay.
10. In the light of the above discussion, 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 petitioner.
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl. No.128/2023, dated 07.10.2023, passed
by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Karuppasamy, son of
Poolpandi, aged about 30 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his
detention is required in connection with any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
16.04.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Additional Chief
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
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
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
krk
16.04.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
