V.Ramasamy v. State Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 16.10.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1420/2023 V.Ramasamy ..

Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector & District Magistrate Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

3.The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

4.The Superintendent of Central Prison Salem Central Jail, Salem District.

5.The Inspector of Police Gurubarapalli Police Station Krishnagiri District.

..

Respondents

Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records made in SC.No.2/2023 dated 28.02.2023 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri the 2nd respondent herien and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Karthik @ Ganja Karthick son of Seenivasan [late] aged 24 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.K.Bharath Mahan For Respondents :

Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.] (1)The petitioner, grandfather of the detenu Karthick @ Ganja Karthick, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 28.02.2023 slapped on his grandson, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982]. (2)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

(3)Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no live link between the date of proposal and the order of detention. He also stated that the detenu was arrested even on 26.12.2022 in the ground case and the proposal was sent only on 06.02.2023. Even thereafter, the detention order was passed only on 28.02.2023 with a further delay and there is no explanation for the said inordinate delay.

(4)The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushantha Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura and Others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4715, has dealt with similar situation and has held in paragraph No.21 as follows:- ''In the present case, the circumstances indicate that the detaining authority after the receipt of the proposal from the sponsoring authority was indifferent in passing the order of detention with greater promptitude. The "live and proximate link" between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stood snapped in arresting the detenu. More importantly the delay has not been explained in any manner & though this point of delay was specifically raised & argued before the High Court as evident from

Para 14 of the impugned judgment yet the High Court has not recorded any finding on the same."

(5)The Hon'ble Supreme Court was persuaded to allow the Appeal filed before it mainly on the ground that delay in passing the Order of Detention from the date of the proposal would snap the ''live and proximate link'' between prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention. Therefore, failure on the part of the Detaining Authority in explaining such delay as in the present case also is a valid ground for quashing the Detention Order.

(6) In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 28.02.2023 in SC.No.2/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu Karthick @ Ganja Karthick, S/o.[late] Seenivasan, aged about 24 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.M, J.] 16.10.2023 AP

To 1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector & District Magistrate Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

3.The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

4.The Superintendent of Central Prison Salem Central Jail, Salem District.

5.The Inspector of Police Gurubarapalli Police Station Krishnagiri District.

6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

S.S.SUNDAR, J., AND SUNDER MOHAN, J., AP H.C.P.No.1420/2023 16.10.2023