[CASE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr[CASE NUMBER] Justice [ENTITY] and The Hon'ble Mr[CASE NUMBER] Justice RMT[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Petitioner -vs- 1[CASE NUMBER]The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] 2[CASE NUMBER]The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] Respondents Petition filed under Article [SECTION]6 of the [ACT], to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the second respondent in [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] dated 23[CASE NUMBER]07[CASE NUMBER]2019 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the body of the detenue [ENTITY] confined in Special Prison for Women, Vellore before this Court and set her at liberty[CASE NUMBER] For Petitioner : Mr[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY] For Respondents Mr[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY] : Addl[CASE NUMBER] Public Prosecutor Page 1 of 7 http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in [CASE NUMBER] ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by [ENTITY], J[CASE NUMBER]] The petitioner is the husband of the detenue, [ENTITY], W/o[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], female, aged 32 years[CASE NUMBER] The detenue has been detained by the second respondent by his order in [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] dated 23[CASE NUMBER]07[CASE NUMBER]2019, holding to be a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under [SECTION] of [ACT][CASE NUMBER] The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition[CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER] We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents[CASE NUMBER] We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority[CASE NUMBER]
3[CASE NUMBER] Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention[CASE NUMBER] The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in [CASE NUMBER] representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay[CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition[CASE NUMBER] He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be quashed[CASE NUMBER] According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT][CASE NUMBER]
5[CASE NUMBER] The Detention Order in question was passed on 23[CASE NUMBER]07[CASE NUMBER]2019[CASE NUMBER] The petitioner made a representation on 07[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2019[CASE NUMBER] Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 19[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2019[CASE NUMBER] The remarks were duly received on 27[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2019[CASE NUMBER] Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 23[CASE NUMBER]09[CASE NUMBER]2019[CASE NUMBER]
6[CASE NUMBER] It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in [CASE NUMBER] 3 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks[CASE NUMBER] It is the contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 27[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2019 and there was delay of [SECTION] days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 8 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 14 days in considering the representation[CASE NUMBER]
7[CASE NUMBER] In [PRECEDENT], the Honourable Supreme Court has 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 undertaken by the detenu[CASE NUMBER]
8[CASE NUMBER] In [PRECEDENT], 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 would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention[CASE NUMBER]
http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in [CASE NUMBER]
9[CASE NUMBER] In [PRECEDENT], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the very detention illegal[CASE NUMBER]
10[CASE NUMBER] In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 5 days in submitting the remarks and 14 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department[CASE NUMBER] The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed[CASE NUMBER]
11[CASE NUMBER] In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] dated 23[CASE NUMBER]07[CASE NUMBER]2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside[CASE NUMBER] The detenue, namely, [ENTITY], W/o[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], female, aged 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case[CASE NUMBER]
(M[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]S[CASE NUMBER],J[CASE NUMBER]) ([ENTITY]) 20[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]2019 Index : Yes / No mmi/ssm http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in [CASE NUMBER] To
1[CASE NUMBER]The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER]The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]
3[CASE NUMBER]The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER]The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]
http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], J[CASE NUMBER]
and RMT[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], J[CASE NUMBER]
ssm 20[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]2019 http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in