Madras High Court
M.Mallika vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 28 October, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
H.C.P(MD)No.789 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD) No.789 of 2024
M.Mallika
... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records relating to
the detention order passed in M.H.S Confdl No. 56/2024, dated
02.04.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same
and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu
namely the petitioner's husband i.e., Murugan, S/o.Patchaikan, aged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
H.C.P(MD)No.789 of 2024
about 52 years, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai and set
him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Murugan,
S/o.Patchaikan, aged about 52 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in Detention Order in M.H.S Confdl No.
56/2024, dated 02.04.2024 holding him to be a "Goonda", as
contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said
order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the
Detaining Authority.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas
corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the
representation of the petitioner, dated 15.05.2024. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated
15.05.2024, the same was received by the Government on 16.05.2024
and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 31.05.2024 There is a
delay of 4 days in Column Nos.6 to 9A and 10 to 12 of the Proforma
dated 01.10.2024 in considering the petitioner's representation. The said
delay of 4 days in considering the representation remains unexplained
and the same vitiates the impugned detention order. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of
the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions,
submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the
Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned
detention order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention
order. It is also stated that even if there is any delay in disposal of the
representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu
and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. 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 15.05.2024, which was received by the
Government on 16.05.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu
on 31.05.2024. As per the proforma submitted by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of 4 days in Column Nos.6 to 9A and
10 to 12 in considering the representation of the petitioner and we find
that the said delay remains unexplained.
6. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court in Rajammal's case, 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."
8. 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 4 days has not been properly explained.
9. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State
of Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, the Honourable 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',
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
10. 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.
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in Detention Order in M.H.S Confdl No. 56/2024,
dated 02.04.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The
detenu, viz., Murugan, S/o.Patchaikan, aged about 52 years, is directed to
be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with
any other case.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.P, J.)
28.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
PNM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.POORNIMA, J.
PNM
ORDER MADE IN
28.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
