Madras High Court
Anandkumar vs Government Of Tamilnadu on 16 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
HCP(MD)No.1286 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1286 of 2024
Anandkumar ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
District Collector and District Magistrate's office,
Thanjavur District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Trichy Central Prison,
Trichy. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records
connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in P.D.No.
36/2024 dated 04.09.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents
to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Thiru.Selvin @
Selvakumar, son of Ramasamy, aged about 50 years, now detained as
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 10:35:21 am )
HCP(MD)No.1286 of 2024
Drug Offender at Central Prison, Trichirappalli, before this Court and set
him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]
The petitioner is the son-in-law of the detenu namely,
Thiru.Selvin @ Selvakumar, son of Ramasamy, aged about 50 years. The
detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in
P.D.No.36/2024 dated 04.09.2024, holding him to be a "Drug Offender",
as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 10:35:21 am )
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, dated Nil. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's representation was received by
the Government on 23.09.2024, whereas the file was submitted by the
ASO/SO only on 01.10.2024. There is a delay of 7 days in Column Nos.6
and 7 of the Proforma dated 25.02.2025 in considering the detenu's
representation. The said delay of 7 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 10:35:21 am )
rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus
petition
5. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that as per the proforma
submitted the by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is a
delay of 7 days in Column Nos.6 and 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 7 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay
has vitiated further detention of the detenu.
7. In the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court in Rajammal's case, it has been held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 10:35:21 am )
"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 7 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 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 ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 10:35:21 am )
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 P.D.No.36/2024 dated 04.09.2024, passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu namely, Thiru.Selvin @
Selvakumar, son of Ramasamy, aged about 50 years, is directed to be
released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with
any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.]
16.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 10:35:21 am )
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
District Collector and District Magistrate's office,
Thanjavur District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Trichy Central Prison,
Trichy.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 10:35:21 am )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 16.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 10:35:21 am )
