S.Chitra v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.10.2023 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL S.Chitra .. Petitioner vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate of Dindigul District, Office of the District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Police, Thadikombu Police Station, Dindigul Taluk Circle, Dindigul District.
.. Respondents Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent 1/8
made in his proceedings in Detention Order No.22 of 2023 dated 06.04.2023 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 M.Sakthivel, son of late Murugan, male, aged about 37 years, who is now detained in Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Suresh For Respondents :
Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] This 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 06.04.2023 bearing reference Detention Order No.22 of 2023' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of brevity and convenience]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as the impugned preventive detention order has been made by second respondent.
2. Impugned preventive detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber 2/8
law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982. 3.There is no adverse case. This solitary case which is the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.31 of 2023 on the file of Thadicombu Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 506(i) and 302 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Considering the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the case.
4. Mr.M.Suresh, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
3/8
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as date of arrest in the ground case is 19.01.2023 but the impugned preventive detention order has been made only on 06.04.2023.
6. Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected and time was consumed in this exercise. Considering the facts / circumstances of the case on hand and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable.
7. We remind ourselves of Sushanta Kumar Banik's case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333]. To be noted, Banik case arose under 'Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988' [hereinafter 'PIT NDPS Act' for the sake of brevity] in Tirupura, wherein after considering a proposal by a Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the 'live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping' point should be examined on a case to case basis. 4/8
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is 'unreasonable delay' and the other facet is 'unexplained delay'. We find that the captioned matter falls under latter facet i.e., unexplained delay.
8. To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/334, Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/733, Sangeetha Vs. The Secretary to the Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1110, N.Anitha Vs. The Secretary to Government and others 1159 and a series of similar orders in HCP cases.
9. To be noted, the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is a solitary case viz., Crime No.31 of 2023 on the file of Thadicombu Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 506(i) and 302 of IPC.
5/8
10. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
11. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 06.04.2023 bearing reference Detention Order No.22 of 2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu M.Sakthivel, aged 37 years, son of late Murugan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 03.10.2023 Index : Yes/No ps P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Madurai.
6/8
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate of Dindigul District, Office of the District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Police, Thadikombu Police Station, Dindigul Taluk Circle, Dindigul District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., ps 03.10.2023 8/8