Abdul Majeed v. State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.06.2020 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR H.C.P. No. 147 of 2020 Abdul Majeed S/o.Kunjali Meepuguri House Kudal Post Kasarcode District Kerala 671 124.

... Petitioner -vs1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Secretary, Home Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus relating to the detention order in Memo No.611/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 20.09.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner Thiru.Abdul Majeed S/o.Kunjali, aged about 25 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set the petitioner Thiru.Abdul Majeed S/o.Kunjali, aged about 25 years, the detenu herein set him liberty.

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Muthukumar For Respondents : Ms.M.Prabhavathi, Addl. Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner himself is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.611/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 20.09.2019, 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.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing 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.Among other grounds, the detention order is mainly attacked on the ground that there is a delay in passing the order of detention. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly contended that though the detenu was arrested on 06.08.2019, the detention order was passed only on 20.09.2019 i.e., after a considerable delay of more than one month. Therefore, the detention order has to be set aside. 4.As seen from the grounds of detention, it is clear that though the detenu was arrested on 06.08.2019, the order of detention came to be passed only on 20.09.2019 and hence, there is an abnormal delay in passing the order of Detention, which caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu. 5.We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. There is no satisfactory explanation offered by the Detaining Authority for the delay in passing the order of detention. Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.611/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 20.09.2019 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Abdul Majeed S/o.Kunjali, aged about 25 years,

is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar raa/mmi/ssm To 1.The Secretary, Home Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government Public Law & Order Fort St.George Chennai-9 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P. No. 147 of 2020 ad(co) aa29/07/2020