Madras High Court
Ramalakshmi vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 29 April, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.1200 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.1200 of 2023
Ramalakshmi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Additional Chief Secretary
to Government of Tamilnadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi
3.The Superintendent of Police
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi
4.The Inspector of Police
Seidunganallur Police Station
Thoothukudi District
5.The Superintendent of Central Prison
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District ... 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 H.S.
(M) Confdl.No.111/2023, dated 02.09.2023, on the file of the second
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.1200 of 2023
respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce
the body of the petitioner's husband, namely, Deva @ Devaraj, son of
Muthupalavesam, aged about 21 years, now confined in Central Prison,
Palayamkottai (now confined at the Central Prison, Trichy), before this Court
and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu, Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr.V.Angusamy
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., Deva @ Devaraj, son of
Muthupalavesam, aged about 21 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.111/2023, dated
02.09.2023, 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 is dated Nil, the same was received by the
Government on 12.10.2023 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on
21.10.2023. There is a delay of four days 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
is dated Nil, which was received by the Government on 12.10.2023 and the
rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 21.10.2023. 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 H.S.(M) Confdl.No.111/2023, dated 02.09.2023, passed
by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Deva @ Devaraj, son of
Muthupalavesam, aged about 21 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.]
29.04.2024
(2/7)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary
to the Government of Tamilnadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Seidunganallur Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
5.The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
6.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
29.04.2024
(2/7)
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
