IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.03.2022

Coram

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH

and

The Honourable Mr. Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN

H.C.P.No.1528 of 2021

Kala

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by

The Secretary of Government,

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St.George,

Chennai-600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police,

Salem City.

3. The Superintendent,

Central Prison,

Salem-636 007.

4. The Inspector of Police,

Fairlands Police Station,

Salem City,

Salem District.

(Crime No.299/2021)

.. Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the

entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's

son, the detenu Rajkumar, aged 24 years, son of Nagamaiyen,

presently detained in the Central Prison, Salem, under Act

14/1982 as “Goonda” vide the detention order dated

07.09.2021 in C.M.P.No.71/Immoral Traffic Offender/Salem

City/2021, on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein,

directing to produce the person or body of the detenu

Rajkumar, aged 24 years, son of Nagamaiyan, before this

Court and thereafter set him at liberty from the Central

Prison, Salem, by setting aside the above order.

For Petitioner

: Mr.C.Emilias

for Mr.M.T.Arunan

For Respondents

: Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran

Addl. Public Prosecutor

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Rajkumar,

aged 24 years, son of Nagamaiyan. The detenu has been

detained by the second respondent by his order in

C.M.P.No.71/I.T.O/Salem City/2021 dated 07.09.2021, holding

him to be a "Immoral Traffic Offender", as contemplated

under Section 2(g) 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 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 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 strongly

opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter.

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 on

16.09.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the

Government from the Detaining Authority on 29.09.2021. The

remarks were duly received on 11.10.2021. Thereafter, the

Government considered the matter and passed the order

rejecting the petitioner's representation on 29.10.2021.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there

was a delay of 12 days in submitting the remarks by the

Detaining Authority, of which, 4 days were Government

Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 8 days

in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of

the petitioner that the remarks were received on 11.10.2021

and there was a delay of 4 days in considering the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

representation by the