or the v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in

H.C.P.No.2258 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.02.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANH.C.P.No.2258 of 2023Murugeshwari... PetitionerVs.1.State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,The Greater Chennai City,Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, puzhal, Chennai-600 066.4.The Inspector of Police,G-1, Vepery Police Station,Chennai. ... RespondentsPrayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2258 of 2023No.448/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 06.10.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Sivakumar @ Macha Siva, S/o Pichaimani, aged about 28 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.A.Vinoth KumarFor Respondents: Mr.E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. AravindORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Sivakumar @ Macha Siva, S/o.Pichaimani, aged 28 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 06.10.2023 slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand 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 H.C.P.No.2258 of 20232. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focussed mainly on the ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 15.11.2023. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 15.11.2023, the same has been received by the Government only on 18.11.2023; the file has been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 24.11.2023 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file only on 27.11.2023 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 28.11.2023 and sent to the detenu on 29.11.2023. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the delay of 3 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 417.4. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2258 of 2023petitioner is dated 15.11.2023, which was received by the Government on 18.11.2023 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenu only on 27.11.2023 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenu on 29.09.2023. Thus, we find there is a considerable delay of 3 days in considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 3 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 4 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2258 of 2023by 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 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. Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2258 of 20238. 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, in Memo No.448/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 06.10.2023 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,Sivakumar @ Macha Siva, S/o Pichaimani, aged 28 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 09.02.2024srIndex: Yes / NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NoPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2258 of 2023To1.State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,The Greater Chennai City,Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, puzhal, Chennai-600 066.4.The Inspector of Police,G-1, Vepery Police Station,Chennai.5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2258 of 2023M.S.RAMESH , J. andSUNDER MOHAN, J.sr H.C.P.No.2258 of 202309.02.2024Page 8 of 8

H.C.P.No.2258 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.02.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANH.C.P.No.2258 of 2023Murugeshwari... PetitionerVs.1.State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,The Greater Chennai City,Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, puzhal, Chennai-600 066.4.The Inspector of Police,G-1, Vepery Police Station,Chennai. ... RespondentsPrayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2258 of 2023No.448/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 06.10.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Sivakumar @ Macha Siva, S/o Pichaimani, aged about 28 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.A.Vinoth KumarFor Respondents: Mr.E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. AravindORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Sivakumar @ Macha Siva, S/o.Pichaimani, aged 28 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 06.10.2023 slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand 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 H.C.P.No.2258 of 20232. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focussed mainly on the ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 15.11.2023. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 15.11.2023, the same has been received by the Government only on 18.11.2023; the file has been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 24.11.2023 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file only on 27.11.2023 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 28.11.2023 and sent to the detenu on 29.11.2023. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the delay of 3 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 417.4. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2258 of 2023petitioner is dated 15.11.2023, which was received by the Government on 18.11.2023 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenu only on 27.11.2023 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenu on 29.09.2023. Thus, we find there is a considerable delay of 3 days in considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 3 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 4 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.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 Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2258 of 2023by 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 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. Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2258 of 20238. 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, in Memo No.448/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 06.10.2023 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,Sivakumar @ Macha Siva, S/o Pichaimani, aged 28 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 09.02.2024srIndex: Yes / NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NoPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2258 of 2023To1.State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police,The Greater Chennai City,Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.3.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, puzhal, Chennai-600 066.4.The Inspector of Police,G-1, Vepery Police Station,Chennai.5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2258 of 2023M.S.RAMESH , J. andSUNDER MOHAN, J.sr H.C.P.No.2258 of 202309.02.2024Page 8 of 8