Madras High Court
Kasthuri vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 8 January, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.2141 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.2141 of 2023
Kasthuri ...Petitioner/Wife of detenu
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Chengalpet District, Chengalpattu.
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
5.The Inspector of Police,
PEW Madhuranthagam,
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2141 of 2023
Chengalpattu District. ...Respondents
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the
entire records, relating to 2nd Respondent culminating with the order of
detention bearing CPT.No.65/2023 dated 06.10.2023 on the file of the 2nd
respondent detaining the petitioner husband under Section Act XIV of 1982
and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to
produce the body of the person of the detenu, Thiru Lakshmipathi S/o.
Harihendran, male aged about 50 years before this Court, now detained in
the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and thereby set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jaikumar
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, wife of the detenu Lakshmipathi, aged about 50 years,
has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed
by the 2nd respondent dated 06.10.2023 slapped on her husband, branding
him as "Bootlegger" 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. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many
grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he
confined his arguments only to the ground of delay in considering the
representation of the detenu, dated 25.10.2023. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, though the representation dated 25.10.2023, was
received by the Government on 30.10.2023 ; and though the file has been
dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 31.10.2023, the Minister concerned
dealt with the file only on 06.11.2023 and the Rejection Letter prepared on
the same day was sent to the detenu on 07.11.2023. It is the further
submission of the learned counsel that this inordinate delay 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.
3. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents.
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 detenu,
dated 25.10.2023, which was received by the Government on 30.10.2023,
was dealt with by the Minister concerned only on 06.11.2023 and the
Rejection Letter was prepared on the same day. Thus, we find there is a
considerable delay of three days [after excluding the intervening Saturday
and Sunday [04.11.2023 and 05.11.2023] in considering the representation
of the petitioner. This inordinate delay in considering the detenu's
representation remain 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 inordinate delay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 "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."
7. 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 three
days, has not been properly explained.
8. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
9. In the light of the above fact and law, 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 detenu.
10. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the
detention order in CPT No.65/2023 dated 06.10.2023, passed by the 2nd
respondent is quashed. The detenu viz., Lakshmipathi S/o. Harihendran,
aged about 50 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is
required in connection with any other case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
08.01.2024
ars
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Chengalpet District,
Chengalpattu.
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
5.The Inspector of Police,
PEW Madhuranthagam,
Chengalpattu District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ars
08.01.2024
(2/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
