H.C.P.(MD) No.1180 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 21.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

H.C.P.(MD) No.1180 of 2021

N.Rajkumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Fort St. George,

Chennai – 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,

Office of the 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.28/2021 dated 01.07.2021 and quash the same as

illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name

Rajkumar, S/o.Nagaraj, aged about 31 years, now detained in Madurai

Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Malaikani

For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

O R D E R

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

AND

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

The petitioner is the detenu, namely,

Rajkumar,

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

the second respondent by his proceedings in Detention Order

No.28/2021 dated 01.07.2021, holding him to be a "Sexual Offender",

as contemplated under 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said

order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

1/4

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

H.C.P.(MD) No.1180 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

01.07.2021. The petitioner made a representation dated 20.07.2021

and the same was received on 29.07.2021. Thereafter, remarks were

called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on

29.07.2021 and remarks were received on 17.08.2021, in which, there

is a delay of 9 days excluding the Government Holidays of 9 days.

Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary has dealt with the representation

on 27.08.2021 and Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise

has dealt with the representation on 20.10.2021, in which, there is

a delay of 32 days excluding the Government Holidays of 21 days.

Ultimately, the petitioner's representation was rejected on

21.10.2021. Thus there is a delay of 41 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 th