Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Madras Any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the very detention illegal MANU/TN/8896/2021 - (06 Dec 2021) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Bharathi Vs. The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the 2nd Respondent by his order, holding him to be a "BOOTLEGGER", as contemplated under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders And Slum-grabbers Act, 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition. The Petitioner submitted that, there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. 
It is the submission of the Petitioner that, there was a delay of 20 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 7 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 13 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that, the remarks were received on 9th August, 2021 and there was inordinate delay of 9 days in considering the representation. 
In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Hon'ble 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. In Sumaiya Vs. The Secretary to Government, 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. 
In Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, the 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. 
In the present case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 13 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 9 days in considering the representation by the Minister for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed. The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. Petition allowed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Delay, Representation, Detention</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>