Madras High Court
Subashini vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 19 August, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.354 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
H.C.P.(MD) No.354 of 2024
Subashini ... Petitioner/wife of the detenu
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.354 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned detention order passed by the second respondent made in his
proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.05/2024, dated 27.02.2024 in detaining the
detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda
and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu
namely, Elayaraja, son of Durairaj, Male, aged about 42 years, who is
detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him
at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Elayaraja, son of
Durairaj, aged about 42 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.05/2024, dated 27.02.2024 holding
him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus
Petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining
Authority.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas
Corpus Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the
ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the
representation of the petitioner, dated 12.03.2024. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated
12.03.2024, the same was received by the Government on 15.03.2024 and
the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 29.03.2024 and the Ministry
dealt with the same on 22.03.2024. There is a delay of 4 days in Column
Nos.6 to 9A and 10 to 12 of the Proforma dated -Nil- in considering the
petitioner's representation. The said delay of 4 days in considering the
representation remains unexplained and the same vitiates the impugned
detention order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions,
submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring
Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention
order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order. It is also
stated that even if there is any delay in disposal of the representation, it
has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed
for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.
5. 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 12.03.2024, which was received by the Government
on 15.03.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on
29.03.2024. As per the proforma submitted by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of 4 days in Column Nos.6 to 9A and
10 to 12 in considering the representation of the petitioner and we find
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the said delay remains unexplained.
6. 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 detenu.
7. In the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court in Rajammal's case, 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
representation should be considered and disposed of
at the earliest."
8. 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, in the instant case, the
inordinate delay of 4 days has not been properly explained.
9. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State
of Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, the Honourable 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. 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.
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.05/2024, dated 27.02.2024, passed by
the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Elayaraja, son of
Durairaj, aged about 42 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless
his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[C.V.K., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
19.08.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
RM
19.08.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
