Madras High Court
Venkatachalam vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 June, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.218 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.218 of 2024
Venkatachalam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
of Cuddalore District
Cuddalore
3.The Superintendent of Police
Cuddalore District
Cuddalore
4.The Inspector of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing
Cuddalore
5.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Cuddalore ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.218 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to
petitioner's brother in law detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide
detention order dated 03.01.2024 on the file of the second respondent
herein made in proceedings C3/D.O./01/2024 and quash the same as illegal
and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's
brother in law namely Ramamoorthy, aged 43 years, son of Kaliyamoorthy,
before this Court and set him at liberty, now petitioner's brother in law
detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the brother-in-law of the detenu viz.
Thiru. Ramamoorthy, aged about 43 years, S/o.Kaliyamoorthy, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the
second respondent dated 03.01.2024 slapped on his brother-in-law,
branding him as "Bootlegger" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as 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
29.01.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the
representation is dated 29.01.2024, the same has been received by the
Government only on 01.02.2024; the file has been dealt with by the Deputy
Secretary on 02.02.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file only
on 11.02.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 12.02.2024 and
sent to the detenue on 13.02.2024. It is the further submission of the
learned counsel that the delay of 5 days in considering the representation
remains unexplained and the same vitiates the detention order. In support
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 petitioner is
dated 29.01.2024, which was received by the Government on 01.02.2024
and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenue
only on 11.02.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenue on
13.02.2024. Thus, we find there is a considerable delay of 5 days in
considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 5 days in
considering the petitioner's representation remains unexplained.
5. It is a 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for the delay of 5 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
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 5 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 detenu,
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
on 03.01.2024 in C3/D.O./01/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Thiru.Ramamoorthy, aged
about 43 years, S/o.Kaliyamoorthy, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith,
unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
04.06.2024
kas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
of Cuddalore District
Cuddalore
3.The Superintendent of Police
Cuddalore District
Cuddalore
4.The Inspector of Police
Prohibition Enforcement Wing
Cuddalore
5.The Superintendent
Central Prison
Cuddalore
6.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
kas
04.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
