A.Palanichamy v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.04.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR A.Palanichamy ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

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

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai District.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Detention Order No.32/2023, dated 03.06.2023 branding the petitioner/detenu as Goonda, under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with order issued by the Government in G.O.(D).No.99, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 12.04.2023 under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely A.Palanichamy S.o.Aadumeikki, aged about 64 years, Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner :

Mr.J.Lawrance For Respondents :

Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the detenu viz., Palanichamy, son of Aadumeikki, aged about 63 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.32/2023, dated 03.06.2023 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, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that there is an inordinate delay between the arrest of the detenu and passing the impugned detention order. In this case, the detenu was arrested on 24.02.2023, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 03.06.2023, i.e., after a lapse of more than three months. This inordinate delay in passing the detention order would vitiate the same. He further submitted that there is no live and proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though there was a delay in passing the impugned detention order, on that score alone, it cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

5. The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 24.02.2023 and the detention order was passed on 03.06.2023. This shows an inordinate delay in passing the detention order, which is also unexplained. The live and proximate link between the arrest of the detenu and the need for passing the order of detention has snapped. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

6. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333, when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of actual arrest and the date of detention order, the Honourable Supreme

Court has held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped throwing a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order unless such delay is satisfactorily explained and consequently making it invalid. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:- "20.

It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and invalid because the "live and proximate link" between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. A question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case."

7. In view of the above, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby vitiating and invalidating the detention order.

8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order No.32/2023, dated 03.06.2023, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Palanichamy, son of Aadumeikki, aged about 63 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 23.04.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No am

To:

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

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

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.

am 23.04.2024