[CASE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.08.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Petitioner -vs- 1.The [ENTITY] 2.The [ENTITY]. Respondents Petition filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT], to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling upon the production of the records relating to the detention order dated 05.04.2019 made in detention order Memo [CASE NUMBER] passed by the second respondent herein quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu namely [ENTITY], S/o. Page 1 of 7 http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Male, Hindu, aged about 32 years, who has been detained in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set the detenu at liberty now confined at Central Prison, Salem. For Petitioner : Mr.[ENTITY] For Respondents Mr.[ENTITY] : Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by [ENTITY], J.] The petitioner is the mother of detenu, [ENTITY], S/o. [ENTITY], Male, aged about 32 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo [CASE NUMBER] dated 05.04.2019 holding to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under [SECTION] of [ACT]. 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.
http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER]
3.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. 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.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition. He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be quashed. 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].
5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 05.04.2019. The petitioner made a representation dated 06.06.2019. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 11.06.2019. The remarks were duly received on 01.08.2019. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER] passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 16.08.2019.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 01.08.2019 and there was a delay of 51 days in submitting the remarks of which 14 days were Government Holidays. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a delay of 13 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 5 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 8 days in considering the representation. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 16.08.2019.
7. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble 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. http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER]
8. 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.
9. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble 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.
10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 37 days in submitting the remarks and 8 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo [CASE NUMBER] dated 05.04.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, [ENTITY] @ http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], S/o. [ENTITY], Male, aged about 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
([ENTITY]) ([ENTITY]) 30.08.2019 Index : Yes / No mmi/ssm To
1.The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2.The [ENTITY].
3.The [ENTITY].
4.The [ENTITY].
http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], J.
and [ENTITY], J.
(ssm) 30.08.2019 http: www.judis.nic.in