Madras High Court
Vijaya vs State Of Tamilnadu on 2 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.1302 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1302 of 2024
Vijaya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police,
G-5, Secretariat Colony Police Station,
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison – II,
Puzhal, Chennai 600 066. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1302 of 2024
detention order in Memo No.438/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 30.04.2024
passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set
aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's
husband Thiru.Gopi S/o.Annappan, aged about 46 years the detenue,
now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble
Court and set the petitioner's husband Thiru.Gopi S/o.Annappan, aged
about 46 years the detenue herein at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar
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 Gopi,
aged about 46 years, S/o.Annappan, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated
30.04.2024 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 04.06.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
though the representation is dated 04.06.2024, the same has been
received by the Government only on 05.06.2024; the file has been dealt
with by the Deputy Secretary on 10.06.2024 and the Minister concerned
dealt with the file on 13.06.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared
on 14.06.2024 and was sent to the detenue only on 18.06.2024. 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.
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 04.06.2024, which was received by the Government
on 05.06.2024 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file
of the detenue only on 13.06.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to
the detenue on 18.06.2024. Thus, we find there is a 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 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',
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 30.04.2024 in No.438/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu namely
Gopi, aged about 46 years, S/o.Annappan, 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]
02.08.2024
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.State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police,
G-5, Secretariat Colony Police Station,
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison – II,
Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Tsg
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
