M. Amsa, v. The Secretary To Goverment,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.01.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR H.C.P. No.1899 of 2017 M.Amsa ... Petitioner -Vs1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the order of detention 04/G/IS/2017 dated, 20.06.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and also to direct the respondents to produce the detenu Thiru. Duraisingam, S/O. Arumugam,aged about 57 years who is presently detained in the Central Prison, Coimbatore before this Hon'ble court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Saravana Kumar For Respondents: Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.] The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, namely, Duraisingam, son of Arumugam, age 57 years, challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 20.06.2017 in C.No.04/G/IS/2017 detaining her husband as "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of dangerous activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).
2. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of nonapplication 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 was arrested in the ground case in Cr.No.08/2017 on 19.03.2017 itself whereas the detention order was passed on 20.06.2017, i.e. after a lapse of three months. 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 20.06.2017 but the detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 19.03.2017. This shows an inordinate delay of 3 months 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 possession of 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 order of detention in C.No.04/G/IS/2017 dated 20.06.2017, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Duraisingam, son of Arumugam, aged about 57 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar kmi To:
1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison Coimbatore
4. The Joint Secretary to Government Public(Law and order) Fort. St. George Chennai 9.
5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
+1 CC to Mr.M. Saravana Kumar, Advocate sr 5977. H.C.P.No.1899 of 2017 GR(CO) SP(22/02/2018)