or the v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in

HCP.No.553 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.06.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.553 of 2024Arumugam... PetitionerVs.1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,O/o the Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai, Vepery,Chennai – 600 007.3.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai – 600 066.4.State rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Anti-Vice Squad-II,Chennai.... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 2024detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in BCDFGISSSV.No.105 of 2024 dated on 13.02.2024 against the petitioner's son branding him IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFENDER and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Manivannan S/o.Arumugam aged about 32 years now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.Nirmal Kumar SharmaFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public ProsecutorORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.ANDSUNDER MOHAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu namely Thiru.Manivannan, aged about 32 years, S/o.Arumugam, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 13.02.2024 slapped on his son, branding him as "Immoral Traffic Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 20242. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds are raised in the 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 11.03.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 11.03.2024, the same has been received by the Government only on 13.03.2024; the file has been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 18.03.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file on 22.03.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 25.03.2024 and was sent to the detenue only on 27.03.2024. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the delay of 5 days in considering the representation remains unexplained and the same vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 20244. 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 11.03.2024, which was received by the Government on 13.03.2024 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenue only on 22.03.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenue on 27.03.2024. Thus, we find there is a delay of 5 days in considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 5 days in considering the petitioner's representation remains unexplained. 5. 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 5 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenue.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 20246. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal's case (cited supra), 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."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, here the inordinate delay of 3 days has not been properly explained at all.7. Further, in a recent decision in 'Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC', the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is a history of Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 2024insistence 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 detenue, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay. 8. 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.9. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 13.02.2024 in No.105/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu namely Manivannan, aged about 32 years, S/o.Arumugam, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 25.06.2024Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoTsgPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 2024To1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,O/o the Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai, Vepery,Chennai – 600 007.3.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai – 600 066.4.State rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Anti-Vice Squad-II,Chennai.5.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN , J. TsgH.C.P.No.553 of 202425.06.2024Page 8 of 8

HCP.No.553 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.06.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.553 of 2024Arumugam... PetitionerVs.1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,O/o the Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai, Vepery,Chennai – 600 007.3.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai – 600 066.4.State rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Anti-Vice Squad-II,Chennai.... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 2024detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in BCDFGISSSV.No.105 of 2024 dated on 13.02.2024 against the petitioner's son branding him IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFENDER and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Manivannan S/o.Arumugam aged about 32 years now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.Nirmal Kumar SharmaFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public ProsecutorORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.ANDSUNDER MOHAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu namely Thiru.Manivannan, aged about 32 years, S/o.Arumugam, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 13.02.2024 slapped on his son, branding him as "Immoral Traffic Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 20242. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds are raised in the 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 11.03.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 11.03.2024, the same has been received by the Government only on 13.03.2024; the file has been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 18.03.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file on 22.03.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 25.03.2024 and was sent to the detenue only on 27.03.2024. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the delay of 5 days in considering the representation remains unexplained and the same vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 20244. 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 11.03.2024, which was received by the Government on 13.03.2024 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenue only on 22.03.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenue on 27.03.2024. Thus, we find there is a delay of 5 days in considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 5 days in considering the petitioner's representation remains unexplained. 5. 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 5 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenue.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 20246. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal's case (cited supra), 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."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, here the inordinate delay of 3 days has not been properly explained at all.7. Further, in a recent decision in 'Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC', the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is a history of Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 2024insistence 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 detenue, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay. 8. 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.9. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 13.02.2024 in No.105/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu namely Manivannan, aged about 32 years, S/o.Arumugam, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 25.06.2024Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoTsgPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 2024To1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,O/o the Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai, Vepery,Chennai – 600 007.3.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai – 600 066.4.State rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Anti-Vice Squad-II,Chennai.5.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.553 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN , J. TsgH.C.P.No.553 of 202425.06.2024Page 8 of 8