Lakshmi v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAGAVADI Lakshmi W/o.Arjunan .. Petitioner / Mother of the detenu Vs.
The State represented by its 1.
The Secretary to Government (Home) Prohibition and Excise Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009 2.
The Office of District Magistrate and District Collector Salem District 3.
The Superintendent of Police Salem 4.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Salem Page Nos.1/8
5.
The Inspector of Police Sankari Police Station Attur District ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in C.M.P.No.14/GOONDA/C2/2022 and quash the same and produce the detenu, Rajkumar, son of Arjunan, aged about 27 years before this Court and set him at liberty and the detenu is now confined in Central Prison, Salem.
For Petitioner :
Mr.D.Mario Johnson For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.Sylvester John Advocate
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by the mother of the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 16.06.2022 bearing reference C.M.P.No.14/GOONDA/C2/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
Page Nos.2/8
2. Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sandoffenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982. 3.There are three adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.87 of 2022 on the file of Sankari Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 454 and 380 of 'Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for brevity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4. Mr.D.Mario Johnson, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.Sylvester John, Advocate, for all respondents are before us. Page Nos.3/8
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as petitioner was arrested on 18.03.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 16.06.2022.
6. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected /collated and time was consumed in this exercise. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable.
7. We remind ourselves of Sushanta Kumar Banik's case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333]. To be noted, Banik case law arose under 'Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988' [hereinafter 'PIT NDPS Act' for the sake of brevity] in Tirupura, wherein after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon'ble Supreme Page Nos.4/8
Court held that the 'live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping' point should be examined on a case to case basis. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is 'unreasonable delay' and other facet is 'unexplained delay'. We find that the captioned matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay.
8. To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/733], Sangeetha Vs. The Secretary being 2023:MHC:1110], N.Anitha Vs. The Secretary to Government and and a series of other orders in HCP cases.
Page Nos.5/8
9. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
10. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 16.06.2022 bearing reference C.M.P.No.14/GOONDA/C2/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Rajkumar, aged 27 years, son of Thiru.Arjunan is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.) 09.06.2023 Index : Yes Speaking order gpa P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Salem Page Nos.6/8
To 1.
The Secretary to Government (Home) Prohibition and Excise Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009 2.
The Office of District Magistrate and District Collector Salem District 3.
The Superintendent of Police Salem 4.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Salem 5.
The Inspector of Police Sankari Police Station Attur District 6.
The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai Page Nos.7/8
M.SUNDAR, J., and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAGAVADI , J., gpa 09.06.2023 Page Nos.8/8