Madras High Court
Malliga vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By on 1 July, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.880 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.07.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.880 of 2024
Malliga ... Petitioner / Mother of the detenue
Vs.
1.State of Tamilnadu Rep. by
The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai Police,
Commissionerate,
Vepery,
Chennai – 600 001
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066
4.The Inspector of Police,
Anti-vice squad 1 Police Station,
CCB Chennai ... Respondents
Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
H.C.P.No.880 of 2024
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus,
calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the
2nd respondent in proceedings No.133/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated
26.02.2024 against the petitioner's son the detenu son Ramamoorthi, aged
35 years, s/o. Thangaraj (late) now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai – 66 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to
produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kavikannan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Ramamoorthi,
S/o.Thangaraj (late), aged about 35 years, now confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai District, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 26.02.2024 slapped
on her son, branding him as "Immoral Traffic Offender" 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 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 representation of the petitioner,
dated 01.04.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
though the representation is dated 01.04.2024, the same has been received
by the Government only on 03.04.2024; the file has been dealt with by
the Deputy Secretary on 05.04.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt
with the file only on 13.04.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on
15.04.2024 and sent to the detenu on 16.04.2024. 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.
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 01.04.2024, which was received by the Government on
03.04.2024 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of
the detenu only on 13.04.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the
detenu on 16.04.2024. Thus, we find there is a considerable 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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',
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 first respondent,
in No.133/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 26.02.2024, is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ramamoorthi,
S/o.Thangaraj (late), aged about 35 years, now confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai District, 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]
01.07.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai Police,
Commissionerate,
Vepery,
Chennai – 600 001
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066
4.The Inspector of Police,
Anti-vice squad 1 Police Station,
CCB Chennai
5.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu
01.07.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
