C.Vadivel v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH C.Vadivel .. Petitioner Vs.

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

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

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

.. 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 connected with the detention order passed in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.83 of 2022, dated 29.04.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely, the petitioner's son i.e., Subash, son of Chittiraipandian, aged about 20 years, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.] The petitioner is the brother of the detenu viz., Subash, son of Chittiraipandian, aged about 20 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.83 of 2022, dated 29.04.2022, 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. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the main ground that was canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the bail petition filed by the detenu was dismissed and inspite of the same, the detaining authority took into consideration the order passed in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.23893 of 2016 and came to a conclusion that there is a likelihood of the detenu being let out on bail. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that it is clearly a non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigation was completed and the final report was filed on 31.05.2022 and it was taken on file by the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi in S.C.No.133 of 2022

6. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also materials available on record.

7. On carefully going through the said order, that was a case where the investigation was completed and charge-sheet was also filed and it was pending before the concerned Court. That apart, the accused therein, suffered incarceration for a long time and the order relied upon by the detaining authority cannot be considered to be a similar case. It, therefore, clearly reflects the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to come to the subjective satisfaction.

8. In view of the above, the detention order suffers from nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority and the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

9. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.83 of 2022, dated 29.04.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Subash, son

of Chittiraipandian, 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.) (N.A.V., J.) 28.11.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes rm

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

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

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

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

M.S.RAMESH,J.

and N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

rm 28.11.2022