K.Mary v. The State Of Tn Rep By Its Secretary To Govt Hped Ch

N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.12.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA H.C.P.No.2425 of 2018 K.Mary .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. State rep by The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, The Commissioner Office, Vepery High Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to produce the body of the detenue Viz S.Krishnaperumal @ Kannan aged 31 years son of Subbaiya, who is presently illegally detained under section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/82 vide detention order dated 19.09.2018 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in No.BCDFGISSSV No.856/2018 and consequently direct the 1st respondent herein to produce the body and person of the detenue before this Hon'ble Court and thereafter set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Palaninathan For Respondents :

Mr.R.Prathap Kumar 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 BCDFGISSSV No.856/2018 dated 19.09.2018, whereby the detenu, by name, Krishnaperumal @

Kannan, son of Subbaiya, aged about 31 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, Slum-grabbers 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:- S.No.

Police Station & Crime No.

Section of Law 1.

S-15 Selaiyur Police Station Crime No.551/2018 457, 380 IPC 2.

S-14 Peerkankaranai Police Station Crime No.389/2018 457, 380 IPC 3.

S-15 Selaiyur Police Station Crime No.588/2018 457, 380 IPC 4.

S-15 Selaiyur Police Station Crime No.632/2018 457, 511 IPC @ 457, 380 IPC 5.

S-15 Selaiyur Police Station Crime No.695/2018 457, 380 IPC The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Cr.No.880/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, S-15 Selaiyur Police Station for offences u/s. 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC . The detention order has been passed by Second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.856/2018 on 19.09.2018.

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.880/2018 on 01.08.2018; whereas the detention order was passed on 19.09.2018, i.e. Nearly after a lapse of 49 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 19.09.2018. Further, the detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 01.08.2018. This shows an inordinate delay of nearly 49 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.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV. No.856/2018 dated 19.09.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Krishnaperumal @ Kannan, Son of Subbaiya, aged about 31 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kkn To:

1. The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, The Commissioner Office, Vepery High Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

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

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

5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.2425 of 2018 SSM(23/01/2019)