Madras High Court
Siva Sathya vs State Of on 25 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
H.C.P.No.2267 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2267 of 2024
Siva Sathya
W/o Gopal .. Petitioner
v.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai-66
4. The Inspector of Police
T-14, Mangadu Police Station
Avadi City .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to
the detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.2267 of 2024
made in BCDFGISSSV No.124/2024 dated 12.08.2024 in detaining the
detenu under 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a Goonda and quash the
same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Gopal, Son of
Chinnadurai, aged about 33 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal
at Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :: Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan
For Respondents :: Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings
No.124/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 12.08.2024 is sought to be quashed in
the present habeas corpus petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The order of detention sought to be assailed and the facts as
narrated would reveal that there is a delay of eight days in considering the
representation. The delay in considering the representation and the period
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
during which the detenu was under detention would be construed as
violation of the Constitutional mandate under Article 22 of Constitution of
India and thus, the ground of delay in considering the representation became
fatal in the case of preventive detention. Moreover, the special report filed
by the sponsoring authority is not dated.
4. 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.
Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of
the detenu.
5. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal v.
State of Tamil Nadu and another, (1999) 1 SCC 417, it has been held as
follows:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"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."
6.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 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)
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 sole 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 No.124/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 12.08.2024, is hereby set aside and
the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Thiru.Gopal S/o
Chinnadurai, aged 33 years who is presently under going detention in the
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith
unless he is required in connection with any other case.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (V.S.G.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes/no 25.10.2024
ss
____________
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 Commissioner of Police
Avadi City
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police
T-14, Mangadu Police Station
Avadi City
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM,J.
ss
25.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
