H.C.P.(MD) No.1475 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 05.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

H.C.P.(MD) No.1475 of 2021

Stalin @ Sali

... Petitioner / Detenu

Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,

Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,

Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil.

3.The Superintendent of Prison,

Palayamkottai Central Prison,

Tirunelveli 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 connected with the detention order of the second respondent

in P.D.No.30/2021, dated 06.09.2021 and quash the same and direct

the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue by name

Stalin @ Sali, S/o.Nadarajan, aged about 31 years now, detained at

Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him at

liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.Alagumani

For Respondents

: Mr.S.Ravi,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

ORDER

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

AND

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

The petitioner is the detenu, namely, Stalin @ Sali,

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

the second respondent by his proceedings in P.D.No.30/2021, dated

06.09.2021, 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.

1/3

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

H.C.P.(MD) No.1475 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 06.09.2021.

The petitioner made a representation, dated 22.09.2021 and the same

was received on 27.09.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by

the Government from the Detaining Authority on 27.09.2021 and

remarks were received on 02.12.2021, in which, there is a delay of

40 days excluding the Government Holidays of 25 days. Thereafter,

the Deputy Secretary has dealt with the representation on 03.12.2021

and Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise has dealt with

the representation on 08.12.2021. Ultimately, the petitioner's

representation was rejected on 03.01.2021. Thus, there is a delay

of 40 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