Lakshmi v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.07.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.(MD)No.44 of 2023 Lakshmi .. Petitioner / grandmother of the detenu Vs.

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

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Thanjavur District. Thanjavur.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order in P.D.No.101/2022 dated 07.08.2022 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely

Vijay, S/o.Shankar, male aged about 28 years, who is detained in Cetnral Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Ms.A.Banumathi For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) The petitioner is the brother of the detenu viz., Vijay aged about 28 years, S/o.Shankar. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in detention order P.D.No.101/2022 dated 07.08.2022 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 also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

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 14.06.2022, the detention order was passed only on 07.08.2022 i.e., after a considerable delay of nearly two months. 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 14.06.2022, the order of detention came to be passed only on 07.08.2022 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 P.D.No.101/2022 dated 07.08.2022 passed by the second

respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vijay S/o.Shankar, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

(M.S.R.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 05.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Internet : Yes RR To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Thanjavur District. Thanjavur.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

RR H.C.P.(MD)No.44 of 2023 05.07.2023