Tmt.Chitra v. The Principal Secretary To
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.07.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM H.C.P.No.204/2015 Chitra
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The District Magistrate & District Collector Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the order of detention passed in SC.No.30/2014 dated 23.12.2014 on the file of the 2nd respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents to direct the corpus of the detenu Murali, son of Gopal, aged about 29 years, now lodged at Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty.
For petitioner :
Mr.S.Doraisamy For respondents :
Mr.M.Maharaja, APP
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in SC.No.30/2014 dated 23.12.2014, whereby the detenu/the husband of the petitioner herein, by name, Murali, son of Gopal, aged about 29 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".
2. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.S.Doraisamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has filed a bail application in the ground case in Cr.No.479/2014 before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pappireddippatti in Cr.MP.No.6859/2014 and the same was dismissed on 21.11.2014 ; whereas the detention order was passed on 23.12.2014 i.e. after a lapse of one month. This inordinate delay in passing of detention order would vitiate the same. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005 MLJ (Crl.) 752 (Ramesh v. District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli District and another).
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts.
6.A perusal of the grounds of detention as well as the detention order passed by the detaining authority would show that the Detention Order was passed on 23.12.2014 ; but a perusal of the grounds of detention, in particular paragraph No.4, would show that the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pappireddippatty, came to be dismissed on 21.11.2014, i.e., after a lapse of one month. This shows an inordinate delay of one month in passing the detention order. There is no explanation forthcoming on the side of the respondents for this inordinate delay in passing the detention order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the decision in Ramesh's case (cited supra) wherein this Court has held as follows:
"....
3.It is brought to our notice by the learned
Government advocate that the analyst report was received on 06.12.2014 and the doctor has issued certificate on 07.12.2014. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the sponsoring authority has submitted his affidavit only on 15.01.2015. When the sponsoring authority is in possessionof the analyst report and the doctor's report even on 06.12.2014 and 07.12.2014, there is no proper explanation for submitting his affidavit till 15.01.2015 for invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Even thereafter, the impugned detention order was passed only on 27.02.2015, i.e. After five weeks of receipt of the affidavit from the sponsoring authority. Though the detaining authority has filed a counter affidavit, there is no explanation for the undue delay in passing the impugned order.
4.In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on unreported decision of this Court rendered in H.C.P. No.1149 of 1995, dated 13.12.1995. In similar circumstances, after pointing out the unexplained delay between the date of submission of the affidavit by the sponsoring authority and the detention order, the Division Bench of this Court has concluded thus:
"Such delays tend to have an affect of snapping the link between prejudicial activity and passing of preventive orders......."
7.In view of the above decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that the detention order is unsustainable in law on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in passing the detention order and the same is liable to be set aside.
8.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
AP To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The District Magistrate & District Collector Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison Salem.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
1 CC to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate SR.No. 34243 H.C.P.No.204/2015 sr (CO) PSI (23.07.2015)