1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06[CASE NUMBER]12[CASE NUMBER]2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR[CASE NUMBER]JUSTICE [ENTITY] and THE HONOURABLE MR[CASE NUMBER]JUSTICE [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Petitioner[CASE NUMBER]Wife of the Detenu Vs The State Represented by its 1[CASE NUMBER] The Secretary to the Government (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of [ACT], Fort St[CASE NUMBER] George, Chennai 600 009[CASE NUMBER] 2[CASE NUMBER] The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector, Cuddalore District[CASE NUMBER] Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention dated 06[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2018 passed by the second respondent in [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] and quash the same and produce the detenu [ENTITY] S[CASE NUMBER]o[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in 2 aged about 24 years, before this Court and set him at liberty and the detenu now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore[CASE NUMBER] For Petitioner : Mr[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY] For Respondents : Mr[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by [ENTITY], J) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu herein, viz[CASE NUMBER], [ENTITY], aged about 23 years, S[CASE NUMBER]o[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER], dated 06[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2018, holding him to be a "SAND OFFENDER", as contemplated under [SECTION] of [ACT] 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 ([ACT] Act 14 of 1982)[CASE NUMBER] The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition[CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER] The detenu has come to adverse notice in the following cases:-
http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in S[CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] Police Station & Crime [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] Section of Law
1[CASE NUMBER] Pudupettai Police Station [SECTION] of Mines [CASE NUMBER], and [ACT][CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER] Pudupettai Police Station [SECTION], [SECTION], Cr[CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER]79 of 2016, 354, [SECTION] [ACT] @ Dated 13[CASE NUMBER]03[CASE NUMBER]2016 [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] r[CASE NUMBER]w[CASE NUMBER] [SECTION] of [ACT] [ACT][CASE NUMBER]
3[CASE NUMBER] Pudupettai Police Station [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] [CASE NUMBER], r[CASE NUMBER]w[CASE NUMBER] [SECTION] of Dated 19[CASE NUMBER]06[CASE NUMBER]2016 [ACT][CASE NUMBER]
The ground case has been registered against the detenu in [CASE NUMBER] by the Inspector of Police, Panruti Police Station, for offences under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] r[CASE NUMBER]w[CASE NUMBER] [SECTION] of [ACT][CASE NUMBER]
3[CASE NUMBER] We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents[CASE NUMBER] We have also http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority[CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER] Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, learned counsel for 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 representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay[CASE NUMBER] In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajammal vs[CASE NUMBER] State of [ACT], [(1999) 1 SCC 417][CASE NUMBER]
5[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] http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in
6[CASE NUMBER] The Detention Order in question was passed on 06[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2018[CASE NUMBER] The petitioner made a representation, dated 20[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2018 and the same was received on 24[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2018[CASE NUMBER] Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 24[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2018[CASE NUMBER] The remarks were duly received on 11[CASE NUMBER]10[CASE NUMBER]2018[CASE NUMBER] Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 15[CASE NUMBER]10[CASE NUMBER]2018 and served on the detenu on 16[CASE NUMBER]10[CASE NUMBER]2018[CASE NUMBER]
7[CASE NUMBER] It is the contention of the petitioner that there was an inordinate delay of 41 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 18 days were Saturday and Sunday and Government Holidays and hence there was a delay of 23 days in submitting the remarks[CASE NUMBER] Thereafter, there was yet another delay of 3 days in considering the representation, of which 2 days were Saturdays, Sundays and Government Holidays and hence there was yet another delay of 1 day in considering representation[CASE NUMBER] http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in
8[CASE NUMBER] In Rekha vs[CASE NUMBER] State of [ACT], reported in 2011 (5) SCC 244, 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]
9[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]
10[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]
11[CASE NUMBER] In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in unexplained delay of 23 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 1 day in considering the representation[CASE NUMBER] The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed[CASE NUMBER]
12[CASE NUMBER] In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER], dated 06[CASE NUMBER]08[CASE NUMBER]2018 passed by the second respondent is set aside[CASE NUMBER] The detenu, namely [ENTITY], aged about 24 years, S[CASE NUMBER]o[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case[CASE NUMBER]
[[ENTITY], J] [[ENTITY], J] 06[CASE NUMBER]12[CASE NUMBER]2018 Index : Yes[CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] Internet : Yes Speaking or [CASE NUMBER]n Speaking order Jrl http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in [ENTITY], J[CASE NUMBER] and [ENTITY], J[CASE NUMBER] Jrl To
1[CASE NUMBER] The Secretary to the Government (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of [ACT], Fort St[CASE NUMBER] George, Chennai 600 009[CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER] The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector, Cuddalore District[CASE NUMBER]
3[CASE NUMBER] The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER]
06[CASE NUMBER]12[CASE NUMBER]2018 http: www[CASE NUMBER]judis[CASE NUMBER]nic[CASE NUMBER]in