Madras High Court
Soornambal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.46 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD) No.46 of 2025
Soornambal ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Karur, Karur District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Trichy. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
writ of habeas corpus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned detention
order passed by the second respondent and made in his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.
24/2024 dated 30.08.2024, in detaining the detenue under the Tamil Nadu Act 14
of 1982 under Section 2(f) as a Goonda and quash the same and to direct the
respondents to produce the detenue namely Mathan, S/o. Ravi, aged about 19
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:15 am )
H.C.P.(MD) No.46 of 2025
years, who is detained in Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Santhanam Rajesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]
The son of the petitioner is the detenu viz., Mathan, son of Ravi,
aged about 19 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by
his order in Cr.M.P.No.24/2024 dated 30.08.2024 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 ground that
there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:15 am )
dated Nil. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the
representation is dated 07.09.2024, the same was received by the Government on
16.09.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 09.10.2024. There is
a delay of 11 days in Column Nos.6 & 7 of the Proforma in considering the
petitioner's representation. The said delay of 11 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. He further submitted that the co-
accused has filed the habeas corpus petition in H.C.P(MD)No.1367 of 2024 and
the same has been dismissed by this Court dated 22.04.2025. 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 ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:15 am )
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
in this case there is a delay in considering the representation of the petitioner. 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 07.09.2024,
which was received by the Government on 16.09.2024 and the rejection letter was
sent to the detenu on 09.10.2024. As per the proforma submitted the by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of 11 days in Column Nos.6
& 7 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 11 days. Therefore, we have to hold
that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:15 am )
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 11 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', in Article 22(5) of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:15 am )
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 Cr.M.P.No.24/2024 dated 30.08.2024, passed by the second
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Mathan, aged about 19 years, son of
Ravi, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in
connection with any other case.
NCC : Yes / No [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.]
Index : Yes / No 11.06.2025
Internet : Yes / No
am
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:15 am )
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to
Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Karur, Karur District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Trichy.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:15 am )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA , J.
am
11.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 11:30:15 am )
