P. Leela v. The Principal Secretary To
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.06.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED H.C.P.(MD)No.645 of 2018 P.Leela ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary of Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, District Collector Office, Thanjavur District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.
... Respondents PRAYER: The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent in Detention Order in P.D.No.07/2018 dated 20.02.2018 quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to produce the detenue, namely Bala @ Balamurugan, S/o. Paramasivam, aged 28 years who is now detained in Central Prison, Trichy before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Navinkumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Neelakandan, APP
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.) Petitioner is the mother of the detenu - Bala @ Balamurugan, aged about 28 years, S/o.Paramasivam. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.07/2018, dated 20.02.2018, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section of 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that the detenu, in this case, was arrested on 09.01.2018; whereas the Detention order was passed on 20.02.2018, i.e., after a lapse of 41 days. This inordinate delay in passing of detention order would vitiate the same. In support of his contention, learned counsel for 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). Hence, on the above grounds, the detention order is liable to be set aside. 4.We have also heard the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above said contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
5.Further, 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 20.02.2018; but from the grounds of detention, it is seen that the detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 19.01.2018. This shows an inordinate delay of nearly 31 days in passing the detention order. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. 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......."
6. 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 live link between arrest and need for passing the order of detention has snapped and the detention order is liable to be set aside. 7.In the result, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in P.D.No.07/2018, dated 20.02.2018, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Bala @ Balamurugan, son of Paramasivam, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. 8.In the upshot, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Secretary of Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, District Collector Office, Thanjavur District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort.St.George, Chennai - 9.
5.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
H.C.P.(MD)No.645 of 2018 29.06.2018 mm/nbj JM/PN/SAR 4/12.07.2018/3P/6C