or the v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in

HCP.No.1410 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.08.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1410 of 2024Gnanam.J... PetitionerVs.1.The State of Tamil Nadu,Represented by its Secretaryto Government, HomeProhibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9.2.The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai,Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section),No.132, Commissioner Office Building,E.V.K.Sampath Road,Vepery, Periyamet,Chennai – 600 007.3.The Inspector of Police,V-6, Kolathur Police Station,Kolathur, Chennai-600 082.Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 20244.The Superintendent,Central Prison,Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the detention made in Crime No.420/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 28.04.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai District, the second respondent herein may be set aside and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Thiru.Ganeshraj, Son of Murugan aged 26 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and before this Hon'ble Court and set the detenu Thiru.Ganeshraj, at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.S.MohanavadivelanFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public ProsecutorORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.ANDSUNDER MOHAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the Grandfather of the detenu namely Ganeshraj, aged about 26 years, S/o.Murugan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 28.04.2024 slapped on his grandson, branding him as Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 2024"GOONDA" 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].2. 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 28.05.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 28.05.2024, the same has been received by the Government only on 30.05.2024; the file has been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 07.06.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file on 10.06.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 11.06.2024 and was sent to the detenue only on 12.06.2024. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the delay of 4 days in Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 2024considering 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 417.4. 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 28.05.2024, which was received by the Government on 30.05.2024 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenue only on 10.06.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenue on 12.06.2024. Thus, we find there is a delay of 4 days in considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 4 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 Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 2024records produced, we find that no acceptable explanation has been offered for the delay of 4 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenue.6. 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.Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 20247. 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 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 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 28.04.2024 in No.420/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu namely Ganeshraj, aged about 26 years, S/o.Murugan, is directed to be set at Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 2024liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 02.08.2024Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoTsgNote:-Registry shall forthwith return the bookletcontaining the materials, on which, the Detaining Authority has placed reliance,to the petitioner/counsel for the petitionerwith due acknowledgment.To1.The State of Tamil Nadu,Represented by its Secretaryto Government, HomeProhibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9.2.The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai,Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section),No.132, Commissioner Office Building,E.V.K.Sampath Road,Vepery, Periyamet,Chennai – 600 007.Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 20243.The Inspector of Police,V-6, Kolathur Police Station,Kolathur, Chennai-600 082.4.The Superintendent,Central Prison,Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.5.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN , J. TsgH.C.P.No.1410 of 202402.08.2024Page 9 of 9

HCP.No.1410 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.08.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1410 of 2024Gnanam.J... PetitionerVs.1.The State of Tamil Nadu,Represented by its Secretaryto Government, HomeProhibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9.2.The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai,Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section),No.132, Commissioner Office Building,E.V.K.Sampath Road,Vepery, Periyamet,Chennai – 600 007.3.The Inspector of Police,V-6, Kolathur Police Station,Kolathur, Chennai-600 082.Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 20244.The Superintendent,Central Prison,Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the detention made in Crime No.420/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 28.04.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai District, the second respondent herein may be set aside and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Thiru.Ganeshraj, Son of Murugan aged 26 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and before this Hon'ble Court and set the detenu Thiru.Ganeshraj, at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.S.MohanavadivelanFor Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public ProsecutorORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.ANDSUNDER MOHAN , J. The petitioner herein, who is the Grandfather of the detenu namely Ganeshraj, aged about 26 years, S/o.Murugan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 28.04.2024 slapped on his grandson, branding him as Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 2024"GOONDA" 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].2. 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 28.05.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 28.05.2024, the same has been received by the Government only on 30.05.2024; the file has been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 07.06.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file on 10.06.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 11.06.2024 and was sent to the detenue only on 12.06.2024. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the delay of 4 days in Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 2024considering 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 417.4. 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 28.05.2024, which was received by the Government on 30.05.2024 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenue only on 10.06.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenue on 12.06.2024. Thus, we find there is a delay of 4 days in considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 4 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 Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 2024records produced, we find that no acceptable explanation has been offered for the delay of 4 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenue.6. 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.Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 20247. 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 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 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 28.04.2024 in No.420/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu namely Ganeshraj, aged about 26 years, S/o.Murugan, is directed to be set at Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 2024liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 02.08.2024Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoTsgNote:-Registry shall forthwith return the bookletcontaining the materials, on which, the Detaining Authority has placed reliance,to the petitioner/counsel for the petitionerwith due acknowledgment.To1.The State of Tamil Nadu,Represented by its Secretaryto Government, HomeProhibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9.2.The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai,Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section),No.132, Commissioner Office Building,E.V.K.Sampath Road,Vepery, Periyamet,Chennai – 600 007.Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 20243.The Inspector of Police,V-6, Kolathur Police Station,Kolathur, Chennai-600 082.4.The Superintendent,Central Prison,Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.5.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.1410 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN , J. TsgH.C.P.No.1410 of 202402.08.2024Page 9 of 9