Madras High Court
Kamali vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 1 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.1399 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1399 of 2024
Kamali ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police, (L&O),
V-3 J.J.Nagar Police Station,
Chennai. ... 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
order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent herein and made in Memo
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1399 of 2024
No.373/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 16.04.2024, and set aside the same and
directing the second respondent to produce the detenue, Petitioner's
husband, Thiru.Vignesh @ Vikki aged 23 years, S/o.Veerendiran, now
confined in Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and
thereby set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Baskaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Vignesh
@ Vikki, aged about 23 years, S/o.Veerendiran, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 16.04.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as "GOONDA"
under 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 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an
unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, dated
14.06.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the
representation is dated 14.06.2024, the same has been received by the
Government only on 18.06.2024; the file has been dealt with by the Deputy
Secretary on 28.06.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file on
02.07.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 02.07.2024 and was
sent to the detenue only on 03.07.2024. It is the further submission of the
learned counsel that the delay of 4 days 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 petitioner is
dated 14.06.2024, which was received by the Government on 18.06.2024
and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenue
only on 02.07.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenue on
03.07.2024. Thus, we find there is a delay of 4 days in considering the
representation of the petitioner. This delay of 4 days in considering the
petitioner's representation remains 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 delay of
4 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further
detention of the detenue.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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."
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 of 3 days has not
been properly explained at all.
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
detenue, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and
without any avoidable delay.
8. 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.
9. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent
on 16.04.2024 in No.372/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu namely Vignesh @ Vikki,
aged about 23 years, S/o.Veerendiran, is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other
case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
01.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Tsg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Note:-Registry shall forthwith return the booklet
containing the materials, on which, the
Detaining Authority has placed reliance,
to the petitioner/counsel for the petitioner
with due acknowledgment.
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police, (L&O),
V-3 J.J.Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Tsg
01.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
