AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Marimuthu alias Pattani, S/o.Chelladurai alias Pattani, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been
detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 04.09.2017, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as
Goonda"". Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused
the records carefully.
Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument
on the ground that there is violation of procedural safeguards, which are guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The
learned counsel would submit that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and
unexplained delay. The learned counsel has relied on few Judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Based on the same, the learned counsel
would plead for setting aside the detention order.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this Habeas Corpus Petition. He would submit that though there was delay
in considering the representation, on that score, the impugned detention order need not be interfered with, as on account of the said delay, no
prejudice has been caused to the detenu and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the
Constitution of India.
We have considered the above submissions.
In this case, the Detention Order was passed on 4.09.2017. As against the same, the petitioner made a representation dated ''Nil''. The remarks
were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 25.09.2017. The remarks were received on 04.10.2017. Thereafter, the
Government considered the issue and passed the order rejecting the representation on 11.10.2017. It is the contention of the petitioner that there
was delay of 4 days on the part of the Government in considering the same.
Now, the question is as to whether on that score, the impugned order can be quashed.
In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [2011 (5) SCC 244 ], the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the right to life and liberty of a person is
protected, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has further held that the procedural safeguards are required
to be zealously watched and enforced by the Courts of law and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged
activities of the detenu.
In Sumaiya Vs. The Secretary to Government, [2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145], a Division Bench of this Court has held that the unexplained delay
of three days in disposal of the representation made on behalf of the detenu/detenue would be sufficient to set aside the detention order.
In Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, [1980 (2) SCC 321 ], the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and
unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the detention illegal. This dictum has been followed in
several Judgments consistently by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.
Applying the said dictum laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, if we look into the facts of the present case, undoubtedly, there is an
inordinate and unexplained delay of 4 working days and therefore, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings
in No.56/BCDFGISSSV/2017, dated 04.09.2017, is quashed. The detenu, namely Marimuthu alias Pattani, S/o. Chelladurai alias Pattani, aged
about 23 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.