IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

H.C.P.NO.1367 OF 2021

Kaladevi

.. Petitioner/

Mother of the Detenue

Vs.

1. The Secretary to Government,

Home of Prohibition and Excise Department,

Secretariat,

Fort St.George,

Chennai-600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police/

Detaining Authority,

Coimbatore,

Coimbatore – 18.

3. The Superintendent of Prison,

Central Prison-Coimbatore,

Coimbatore District.

4. State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

E-3, Peelamedu Police Station,

Coimbatore District.

.. Respondents

Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire

records, relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil

Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 17.08.2021 on

the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings

Memo C.No.29/G/IS/2021, quash the same as illegal and

consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the

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

petitioner's son viz., R.Manikandan @ Poosari Mani,

S/o.Rajkumar, aged 23 years, before this Court and set the

petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's

son detained at the Central Prison, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner

: Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi

For Respondents

: Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran

Addl. Public Prosecutor

ORDER

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

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu R.Manikandan @

Poosari Mani, S/o.Rajkumar, aged 23 years. The detenu has been

detained by the second respondent by his order in

C.No.29/G/IS/2021 dated 17.08.2021, holding him to be a "Drug

Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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.

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

5. The Detention Order in question was passed on

17.08.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 06.09.2021.

Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the

Detaining Authority on 08.09.2021. The remarks were duly

received on 14.09.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered

the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's

representation on 28.10.2021.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a

delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining

Authority, of which, 3 days were Government Holidays and hence

there was an inordinate delay of 3 days in submitting the

remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the

remarks were received on 14.09.2021 and there was a delay of 44

days in