The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of procedural safeguards and the consequences of inordinate and unexplained delay in considering representations, which can render a detention order illegal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in P.D.No.114 of 2021, dated 07.09.2021 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue of body of the detenue, namely, the petitioner's son ie., Haridoss, aged about 20 years, S/o.Kavidoss, now detained at Central Prison, Trichirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.)

R. Subramanian, J. & N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, namely, Haridoss, S/o.Kavidoss, aged about 20 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his proceedings in P.D.No.114 of 2021, dated 07.09.2021, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel 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 of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representations made by the petitioner were not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay with regard to the same.

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 Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 07.09.2021. The petitioner made a representation, dated 15.09.2021 and the same was received on 20.09.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 20.09.2021 and remarks were received on 29.09.2021, in which, there is a delay of 3 days excluding the Government Holidays of 5 days. Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary has dealt with the representation on 01.10.2021 and Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise has dealt with the representation on 05.10.2021. Ultimately, the petitioner's representation was rejected on 29.10.2021, in which, there is a delay of 14 days excluding the Government Holidays of 9 days. Thus, there is a delay of 17 days in considering the representation which remains unexplained.

6. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 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.

7. In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government, reported in 2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145, 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.

8. In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321, 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.

9. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an unexplained delay of 17 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

10. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and th