Mrs.Vijayalakshmi v. The District Collector And
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.09.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.No.987 of 2018 Vijayalakshmi W/o.Maduraivel @ John ... Petitioner -vs1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
2.The Government of Tamilnadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600009. ... Respondents Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the first respondent culminating with the order of detention bearing BCDFGISSSV No.15/2018 dated 04.03.2018 passed by the first respondent herein detaining petitioner's husband Maduraivel @ John S/o.Arumugam under Section Act XIV of 1982 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the person of the detenu Maduraivel @ John S/o.Arumugam, male aged about 36 years, before this Court, now detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and thereby set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.J.N.Naresh KUmar For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor *****
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J) Petitioner is the wife of the detenu Maduraivel @ John S/o.Arumugam, who has been branded as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the first respondent passed in BCDFGISSSV No.15/2018 dated 04.03.2018.
2. The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.545 of 2017 on the file of Chunambedu Police Station for offence u/s.174(i) Cr.P.C. altered to 379, 404 and 302 IPC . Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the detenu was arrested on 09.01.2018 in respect of the ground case and the order of detention came to be passed on 04.03.2018. A period of two
months had lapsed between the date of arrest of the detenu and the sponsoring authority recommending his detention. Such long delay stands not explained and hence, the order of detention is liable to be set aside following the order of Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh v. District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli District and another [2005 MLJ (Crl.) 752].
4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.
5. In the decision relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner in Ramesh's case (cited supra), 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........
Following the principle enunciated in the above said order of the Division Bench of this Court, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent, detaining the detenu Maduraivel @ John S/o.Arumugam in BCDFGISSSV No.15/2018 dated 04.03.2018 is quashed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case. [C.T.S., J] [M.N.K., J] 27.09.2018 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes gm To 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
2.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600009.
3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
C.T.SELVAM, J and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J gm
H.C.P.No.987 of 2018 27.09.2018