Sarala v. The District Collector And
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Sarala W/o.Ganapathy ..
Petitioner Vs.
1.
The District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvarur District Tiruvarur.
2.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
3.
The Superintendent of Police Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
4.
The Superintendent, Central Prison Tiruchirapalli.
5.
The Inspector of Police Eruvancherry Police Station Page Nos.1/7
Kudavasal Taluk Tiruvarur District.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records connected with the order of the 1st respondent herein made in C.O.C.No.22/2022 dated 05.08.2022 against the detenu namely, Ganapathy, aged about 33 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Tiruchurapalli and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :
Mr.M.J.Senthil Kumar For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, Advocate
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 05.08.2022 bearing reference C.O.C.No.22/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority and first respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by first respondent. Page Nos.2/7
2. Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sandoffenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982. 3.There is no adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.162 of 2022 on the file of Eravancherry Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 302 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4. Mr.M.J.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Page Nos.3/7
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel for all respondents are before us.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as date of remand in the ground case is 20.06.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 05.08.2022.
6. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected and time was consumed for the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable.
7. We remind ourselves of Sushanta Kumar Banik's case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333]. To be noted, Banik case law arose under 'Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Page Nos.4/7
Substances Act, 1988' [hereinafter 'PIT NDPS Act' for the sake of brevity] in Tirupura, wherein after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the 'live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping' point should be examined on a case to case basis. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is 'unreasonable delay' and other facet is 'unexplained delay'. We find that the captioned matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay.
8. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
9. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 05.08.2022 bearing reference C.O.C.No.22/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Ganapathy, age 33 years, Son of Thiru.Murugan is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no Page Nos.5/7
order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 08.03.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking mk P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.
To 1.
The District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvarur District Tiruvarur.
2.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
3.
The Superintendent of Police Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
4.
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.
5.
The Inspector of Police Eruvancherry Police Station Kudavasal Taluk, Tiruvarur District.
6.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
M.SUNDAR, J., and Page Nos.6/7
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., mk 08.03.2023 (6/6) Page Nos.7/7