Krishnan, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.10.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.No.997 of 2018 Krishnan .. Petitioner Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by The Secretary to Government Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2. The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector & District Magistrate, Coimbatore District.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

..

Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing to hold the impugned order of Detention passed in Cr.M.P.7/G/2018/E-1 passed by the second respondent dated 28.4.2018 under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as highly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and direct the respondents to produce the dentenu namely Krishnan, Son of Ramasamy aged 48 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.J.Stalin 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.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.7/G/2018/E1

dated 28.04.2018, whereby the detenu, by name, Krishnan, son of Ramasamy, aged about 48 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slumgrabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".

2. The detenu has come to adverse notice in the following cases.

Sl.No.

Crime No. & Police Station Section of Law 1.

Cr.No.94/2017 Karumathampatti Police Station Coimbatore District 302 IPC The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Cr.No.32/2018 on the file of Inspector of Police, Karumathampatti Police Station for offences u/s 307 IPC. The detention order has been passed by Second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.7/G/2018/E1.

3. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, 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.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu was arrested in the ground case in Cr.No.32/2018 on 21.01.2018; whereas the detention order was passed on 28.04.2018, i.e. Nearly after a lapse of 97 days. 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).

5. 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.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts.

7. 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 28.04.2018. Further, the detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 21.01.2018. This shows an inordinate delay of nearly 97 days 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......."

8. 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.

9. 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(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kmi To:

1. The Secretary to Government Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2. The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector & District Magistrate, Coimbatore District.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

4. The Joint Secretary, Public (Law and order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.997 of 2018 JP(CO) CS/29/10/2018