[CASE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.10.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice RMT. [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Petitioner -vs- [ENTITY], Rep. by its [ENTITY]. 2.The [ENTITY]. Respondents Petition filed under Article [SECTION]6 of the [ACT], to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in [CASE NUMBER] dated 12.07.2019 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's cousin brother [ENTITY], aged 38 years, son of [ENTITY], before this Court, now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore and set him at liberty. Page 1 of 7 http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER] For Petitioner : Ms.[ENTITY] For Respondents Mr.[ENTITY] : Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by [ENTITY], J.] The petitioner is the sister-in-law of the detenu, [ENTITY], son of [ENTITY], male, aged 38 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in [CASE NUMBER] dated 12.07.2019, 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.
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 http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER] 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 12.07.2019. The petitioner made a representation on [SECTION].07.2019. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 23.07.2019. The remarks were duly received on 25.07.2019. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 16.08.2019.
http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER]
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 25.07.2019 and there was delay of 20 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 7 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 13 days in considering the representation.
7. 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.
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 Honourable Supreme Court has http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER] 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 13 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 [CASE NUMBER] dated 12.07.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, [ENTITY], son of [ENTITY], male, aged 38 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
([ENTITY]) ([ENTITY]) 17.10.2019 Index : Yes / No mmi/ssm http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER] To
1.The [ENTITY].
2.The [ENTITY].
3.The [ENTITY].
4.The [ENTITY].
http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], J.
and RMT. [ENTITY], J.
mmi 17.10.2019 http: www.judis.nic.in