S.Saranya v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2020 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR H.C.P. No. 927 of 2020 S.Saranya ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department (Home), Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Nellikuppam, Cuddalore.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in C3/D.O./16/2020 dated 15.02.2020 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Sumanraj, S/o.Gunasekaran, aged about 20 years, who is now detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C3/D.O./16/2020 dated 15.02.2020, 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 01.01.2020, the detention order was passed only on 15.02.2020 i.e., after a considerable delay of more than a 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 01.01.2020, the order of detention came to be passed only on 15.02.2020 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 C3/D.O./16/2020 dated 15.02.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Sumanraj, S/o.Gunasekaran, aged about 20 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
-s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department (Home), Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Nellikuppam, Cuddalore.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
7.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and order) Fort. St. George Chennai 9.
H.C.P. No.927 of 2020 MP(CO) SP(02/12/2020)