Madras High Court
Pushpavalli vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.1121 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.1121 of 2024
Pushpavalli ... Petitioner/mother of the detenue
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Anti Vice Squad-I, Chennai.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, relating to the
petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention
order, dated 20.04.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein made
in proceedings No.386/BCDFGISSSV/2024 and quash the same as illegal
and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the said
petitioner's son namely Tamilarasan @ Manikandan, aged 31 years, son of
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1121 of 2024
Dhamodharan, before this Court and set him at liberty, now the petitioner's
son detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu namely
Tamilarasan @ Manikandan, aged 31 years, son of Dhamodharan,
detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 20.04.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Immoral Traffic
Offender" 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].
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an
unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, dated
09.05.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the
representation is dated 09.05.2024, the same has been received by the
Government only on 14.05.2024; the file has been dealt with by the
Deputy Secretary on 17.05.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt with the
file only on 22.05.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on
22.05.2024 and sent to the detenu on 23.05.2024. It is the further
submission of the learned counsel that the delay of 3 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.
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 09.05.2024, which was received by the Government on 14.05.2024
and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenu
only on 22.05.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenu on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23.05.2024. Thus, we find there is a considerable delay of 3 days in
considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 3 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 3
days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further
detention of the detenu.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"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 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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,
in No.386/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 20.04.2024, is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Tamilarasan @
Manikandan, aged 31 years, son of Dhamodharan, detained at Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he
is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
01.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Anti Vice Squad-I, Chennai.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu
01.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
