Madras High Court
R.Patchiyammal vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 17 September, 2025
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P(MD)No.30 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.30 of 2025
R.Patchiyammal ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Trichy, Trichy District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kallakkudi Police Station,
Trichy District.
4. 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 order of detention passed by second respondent in proceedings
Cr.M.P.No.21/2024 dated 21.11.2024 and quash the same as illegal and
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
H.C.P(MD)No.30 of 2025
produce the detenu namely Gokul, S/o. Ramalingam, aged about 24
years, now he is confined in Central Prison, Trichy before this Court and
set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.)
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Gokul,
S/o. Ramalingam, aged about 24 years. The detenu has been detained by
the second respondent by Detention Order in Cr.M.P.No.21/2024 dated
21.11.2024 holding him to be a 'Sexual Offender', as contemplated under
Section 2(ggg) 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: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas
Corpus 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 23.11.2024. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated
23.11.2024, the same was received by the Government on 26.11.2024
and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 26.12.2024. There is a
delay of 20 days in considering the petitioner's representation. The said
delay of 20 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the 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 the representation of
the petitioner is dated 23.11.2024, which was received by the
Government on 26.11.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu
on 26.12.2024. Hence, there is a delay of 20 days 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 20 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: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
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 20 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 ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
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. The
detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No.21/2024 dated 21.11.2024, by the
2nd respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu viz., Gokul, S/o.
Ramalingam, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith,
unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with
any other case.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.)
17.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Trichy, Trichy District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kallakkudi Police Station,
Trichy District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Trichy.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
vsm
ORDER MADE IN
17.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:23 pm )
