High Court · 2025

H.C.P(MD)No.1283 of 2024BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 23.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRAandTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMAH.C.P(MD)No.1283 of 2024V.Parasmal... PetitionerVs.1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli City.3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.... RespondentsPage No.1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1283 of 2024PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in detention order No.57/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 07.09.2024 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely, Deepakkumar, aged about 24 years, S/o.Parasmal, who is now detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner: Mr.C.SusikumarFor Respondents: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public ProsecutorO R D E R[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Deepakkumar, aged about 24 years, S/o.Parasmal. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.57/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated Page No.2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1283 of 202407.09.2024 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 28.09.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 28.09.2024, the same was received by the Government on 03.10.2024. The Under Secretary dealt with the representation on 10.10.2024 and the Deputy / Joint / Additional Secretary dealt with the representation on 15.10.2024. There is a delay of 5 days in Column Nos.5 and 7 of the Proforma in considering the petitioner's representation. The said delay of Page No.3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1283 of 20245 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 representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition5. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that as per the proforma submitted the by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of 5 days in Column Nos.5 and 7 in considering the representation of the petitioner and we find that the said delay remains unexplained.Page No.4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1283 of 20246. 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 detenu.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."Page No.5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1283 of 20248. 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 5 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', 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.Page No.6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1283 of 202411. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.57/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 07.09.2024, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Deepakkumar, aged about 24 years, S/o.Parasmal, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 23.06.2025 Index: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NormPage No.7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1283 of 2024To:1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli City.3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Page No.8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P(MD)No.1283 of 2024A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.ANDR.POORNIMA, J.rmORDER MADE INH.C.P(MD)No.1283 of 2024DATED : 23.06.2025Page No.9 of 9