Madras High Court
Ragimeena Raja Mohamed vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 2 August, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.1100 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.1100 of 2024
Ragimeena Raja Mohamed .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and the District Collector,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kangayam Police Station,
Tiruppur.
(Crime No.84/2024)
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruppur District.
5. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
H.C.P.No.1100 of 2024
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the
records pertaining to the Detention order, dated 25.04.2024 made in
Cr.M.P.No.31/GOONDA/2024 passed by the 2nd respondent, and produce
the detenue before this Court now confined in the Central Prison,
Coimbatore and set the detenue Satheesh alias Mariyappan at liberty and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenue Satheesh alias
Mariyappan, S/o.Selvaraj, aged about 26 years, now confined at Central
Prison, Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent dated 25.04.2024 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 and 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 undated representation of the
petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the
representation is dated 07.05.2024, the same has been received by the
Government only on 08.05.2024; the file has been dealt with by the Deputy
Secretary on 24.05.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file only
on 27.05.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 28.05.2024 and
sent to the detenue on 29.05.2024. It is the further submission of the
learned counsel that the delay of 11 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
was received by the Government on 08.05.2024 and further, the Minister
concerned had dealt with the file of the detenue only on 27.05.2024 and the
Rejection Letter was sent to the detenue on 29.05.2024. Thus, we find there
is a considerable delay of 11 days in considering the representation of the
petitioner. This delay of 11 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 11 days.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 11 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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,
in Cr.M.P.No.31/GOONDA/2024, dated 25.04.2024, is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Satheesh alias
Mariyappan, S/o.Selvaraj, aged about 26 years, confined at Central Prison,
Coimbatore, 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]
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
grs
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 to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and the District Collector,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kangayam Police Station,
Tiruppur.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruppur District.
5. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
grs
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
