H.C.P.(MD) No.886 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 07.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

H.C.P.(MD) No.886 of 2021

Rajkumar

... Petitioner/Detenue

Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

Secretariat,

Chennai – 600 009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,

Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,

Dindigul District,

Dindigul.

3.The Superintendent of Prison,

Madurai Central Prison,

Madurai District.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire

records, connected with the Detention Order of the Second respondent

in Detention Order No.23 of 2021 dated 18.05.2021 and to quash the

same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the

detenue by name Rajkumar, S/o.Palanivel, aged about 31 years, now

detained as "Goonda" at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and

set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani

For Respondents

: Mr.T.Senthil Kumar,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

O R D E R

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

AND

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

This petitioner is the detenu, namely, Rajkumar,

S/o.Palanivel, aged about 31 years. The detenu has been detained by

the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.23/2021 dated

18.05.2021, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under 2(f)

of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in

this Habeas Corpus Petition.

1/3

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

H.C.P.(MD) No.886 of 2021

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

18.05.2021. The petitioner made a representation, dated 10.06.2021

and the same was received on 18.06.2021. Thereafter, remarks were

called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on

18.06.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and

passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on

09.07.2021. Though the representation dated 10.06.2021 was received,

it was rejected only on 09.07.2021 with the delay of 5 days, after

excluding the Government Holidays of 2 days. The delay in

considering the representation 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 Divi