Susila v. The Secretary To The Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI Susila W/o.Dhamotharan .. Petitioner/wife of Detenu Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur South Police Station, Tiruppur District.
.. Respondents Page Nos.1/8
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in No.C.No.75/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2022 dated 26.11.2022 on the file of 2nd respondent, quash the detention order dated 26.11.2022 and to direct the production of detenu Dhamotharan, Son of Vijayakumar presently detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore as a "Goonda" under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 before this Court and set him liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.T.Shanmugarajeswaran 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 26.11.2022 bearing reference C.No.75/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
Page Nos.2/8
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 one adverse case and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.645 of 2022 on the file of Tiruppur South Police Station for an alleged offence under Section 394 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.T.Shanmugarajeswaran, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel for all respondents are before us.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that 'live and proximate link' Page Nos.3/8
between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as date of remand in the ground case is 17.10.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 26.11.2022.
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 in this exercise. Considering the facts / circumstances of the case on hand 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 Substances Act, 1988' [hereinafter 'PIT NDPS Act' for the sake of brevity] in Tirupura, wherein after considering a proposal by a 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. Page Nos.4/8
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is 'unreasonable delay' and the other facet is 'unexplained delay'. We find that the captioned matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay.
8. To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported vide Vs. The Secretary to the Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1110, N.Anitha Vs. The Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1159 and a series of other orders in HCP cases.
9. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ. Page Nos.5/8
10. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 26.11.2022 bearing reference C.No.75/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Dhamotharan, aged 22 years, son of Thiru.Vijayakumar, now detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case/s. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.) 12.06.2023 Index : Yes Speaking order rsi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Coimbatore.
Page Nos.6/8
To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur South Police Station, Tiruppur District.
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.7/8
M.SUNDAR, J.
and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
rsi 12.06.2023 Page Nos.8/8