[CASE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.11.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice RMT. [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Petitioner -vs- 1.The [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, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 19.07.2019 in [CASE NUMBER] against the petitioner's son [ENTITY], S[CASE NUMBER]o. [ENTITY], aged about 27 years, who is confined at Central Page 1 of 7 http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER] Prison, Cuddalore set aside the same and direct respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. 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 the detenu, [ENTITY], S[CASE NUMBER]o. [ENTITY], aged about 27 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in [CASE NUMBER] dated 19.07.2019, 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.
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 19.07.2019. The petitioner made a representation on 15.08.2019. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 19.08.2019. The remarks were duly received on 28.08.2019. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER] passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 23.09.2019.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 9 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 3 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 28.08.2019 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.
7. In Rekha vs. [ENTITY] (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. 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 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.
10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks and [SECTION] 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 19.07.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, [ENTITY], S[CASE NUMBER]o. http: www.judis.nic.in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], aged about 27 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
([ENTITY]) ([ENTITY]) 08.11.2019 Index : Yes [CASE NUMBER] No mmi[CASE NUMBER]ssm 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.
ssm 08.11.2019 http: www.judis.nic.in