Madras High Court
Anjalai vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 16 April, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
HCP(MD)No.1559 of 2023
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.1559 of 2023
Anjalai .. Petitioner / Mother of Detenu
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ariyalur District,
Ariyalur.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli. .. 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.19/2023 dated 20.10.2023 in detaining the detenu
under Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash
the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1559 of 2023
Arunpandiyan S/o.Arumugam, Male, aged about 32 years, who is detained
in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.)
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Arunpandiyan, aged
about 32 years, S/o.Arumugam. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.19/2023 dated 20.10.2023
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.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus
Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the
petitioner, dated 06.12.2023. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, though the representation is dated 06.12.2023, the same was
received by the Government on 12.12.2023 and the rejection letter was sent
to the detenu on 21.12.2023. 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, the 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. The 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 is
dated 06.12.2023, which was received by the Government on 12.12.2023
and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 21.12.2023. As per the
proforma submitted 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
detenu, should be 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 Cr.M.P.No.19/2023 dated 20.10.2023 passed by the second
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Arunpandiyan, S/o.Arumugam,
aged about 32 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
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ariyalur District,
Ariyalur.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
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.
Lm
16.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
