Madras High Court
Mrs.Radha vs The Secretary To Government on 1 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.1452 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.1452 of 2024
Mrs.Radha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Cum District Magistrate,
Kallakurichi District,
Kallakurichi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
4.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Kariyalur Police Station,
Kariyalur,
Kallakurichi District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1452 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, relating to
the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in his
proceedings in D.O.No.C2/09/2024 dated:24.04.2024, quash the same as
illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenue
namely Rameshkumar S/o.Chinnaiyan, aged about 38 years, before this
Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty from detention, now the detenue is
detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabudoss
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
Rameshkumar, aged about 38 years, S/o.Chinnaiyan, has come forward
with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 24.04.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as
"BOOTLEGGER" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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].
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 06.06.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
though the representation is dated 06.06.2024, the same has been
received by the Government only on 07.06.2024; the file has been dealt
with by the Deputy Secretary on 10.06.2024 and the Minister concerned
dealt with the file on 17.06.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared
on 18.06.2024 and was sent to the detenue only on 20.06.2024. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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 06.06.2024, which was received by the Government on
07.06.2024 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of
the detenue only on 17.06.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the
detenue on 20.06.2024. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
offered for the delay of 4 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay
has vitiated further detention of the detenue.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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 24.04.2024 in D.O.No.C2/09/2024, is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu namely
Rameshkumar, aged about 38 years, S/o.Chinnaiyan, is directed to be set
at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M.,
J]
01.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Tsg
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 Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Cum District Magistrate,
Kallakurichi District,
Kallakurichi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Kariyalur Police Station,
Kariyalur,
Kallakurichi District.
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
