Madras High Court
Amudha vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 January, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.1750 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1750 of 2023
Amudha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai City,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
J-3, Guindy Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus,
calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
H.C.P.No.1750 of 2023
No.331/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 25.07.2023 passed by the 2nd
respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same
and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son OOSI @
UDHAYAKUMAR S/O. KAPALI aged about 25 years the detenue, now
confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore before this Court and set him at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K. Bommuraj,
for Mr.V. Karthick
For Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu Oosi @
Udhayakumar, S/o.Kapali, aged 25 years, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 25.07.2023 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under
the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand
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 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 focussed mainly on the ground that there is an
unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner,
dated 28.08.2023. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
though the representation is dated 28.08.2023, the same has been
received by the Government only on 30.08.2023; the file has been dealt
with by the Deputy Secretary on 30.08.2023 and the Minister concerned
dealt with the file only on 07.09.2023 and the Rejection Letter was
prepared on 07.09.2023 and sent to the detenu on 08.09.2023. 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner is dated 28.08.2023, which was received by the Government on
30.08.2023 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of
the detenu only on 07.09.2023 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the
detenu on 08.09.2023. Thus, we find there is a considerable 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
offered for the delay of 4 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 4 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 BCDFGISSSV No.331/2023, dated 25.07.2023, is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Oosi @ Udhayakumar, S/o.Kapali, aged 25 years, 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]
03.01.2024
Sni
Index: Yes / No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai City,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
J-3, Guindy Police Station,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni
03.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
