Prayer
The petitioner is the daughter of the detenu Babu @ Anthonysamy, male, aged 58 years, S/o.Mathew Aruldoss. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.No.C2/18/2022 dated 22.04.2022, 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.
Representation
5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 22.04.2022. A representation was made on behalf of the detenu on 12.05.2022. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 03.06.2022.
Inordinate delay of 14 days in considering the representation
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 18 days in considering the representation by the Hon’ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which, 4 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was an inordinate delay of 14 days in considering the representation.
Judgments concerning delay in considering representation
7. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (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.
8. In Sumaiya vs. The Secretary to Government (2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145), a Division Bench of this Court has held that the unexplained delay of three days in disposal of the representation made on behalf of the detenu would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention.
9. In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the very detention illegal.
Quashed based on delay
10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 14 days in considering the representation by the Hon’ble Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
Parties
Lilly Pushpam .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 & Ors….Respondents – H.C.P.No.1223 of 2022 – 2nd November ,2022 – Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/697007
