Latha v. State Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.11.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN H.C.P. No. 1980 of 2019 Latha ... Petitioner -vs1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

2.The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai - 7.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detnetion order in Memo No.471/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 06.08.2019 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Sundar, S/o.Anthonydoss, aged about 30 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner's husband Sundar, S/o.Anthonydoss aged about 30 years the detenu herein at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.V.Somasundaram 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 - Sundar, S/o.Anthonydoss, aged about 30 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.471/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 06.08.2019, 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 perused the materials available on record.

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 26.06.2019, the detention order was passed only on 06.08.2019 i.e., after a considerable delay of more than one 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 26.06.2019, the order of detention came to be passed only on 06.08.2019 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 Memo No.471/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 06.08.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Sundar, S/o.Anthonydoss, aged about 30 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS VII) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar mmi/ssm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

2.The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai - 7.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Joint Secretary to Government Public Law and Order Fort St.George Chennai-9 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P. No. 1980 of 2019 aa07/01/2020