Vijaya v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.07.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.(MD)No.253 of 2023 Vijaya .. Petitioner /mother of the Detenu Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai Tirunelveli District .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed by the second respondent in H.S.(M) Confdl. No. 03/2023 dated 10.01.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or detenu namely Mayakrishnan, S/o.Murugan aged about

20 years, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Mayakrishnan, aged about 20 years, S/o.Murugan. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in H.S.(M) Confdl. No.03/2023 dated 10.01.2023 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. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that the detention order was passed on 10.01.2023 and the grounds of detention ought to have been served within five days, i.e., on or before 15.01.20232. However, it was served on the detenu only on 18.01.2023 and therefore, there is a delay of eight days in serving the booklet to the detenu. On the said sole ground, he contended that the detention order is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter.

5. Perusal of the record would go to show that no doubt, the detention order was passed on 10.01.2023 and the booklet was served on the detenu only on 18.01.2023, which is evident from the endorsement made as under:

As per Section 8 of the Act 14 of 1982, the detaining authority not later than five days from the date of detention, serve the detenu the grounds of detention. As per the said Act, one day should be excluded. In the present case, after excluding the said one day, it is seen that the booklet has been served with a delay of seven days and hence, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in H.S.(M) Confdl. No.03/2023 dated 10.01.2023 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Mayakrishnan, S/o.Murugan, aged about 20 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.) 26.07.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No RR To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order) Secretariat, Chennai.

3.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai Tirunelveli District 5.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.253 of 2023 26.07.2023