Manikandan v. The Principal Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.09.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.(MD)No.788 of 2023 Manikandan .. Petitioner/detenu Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Tiruchirappalli Central Prison, Trichy District.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in C.No.

17/Detention/CPO/TC/2023 dated 27.03.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Manikandan, son of Ravi, aged about 23 years, now detained as Goonda at Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikkumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) The petitioner is the detenu viz., Manikandan, aged about 23 years S/o.Ravi. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.17/Detention/CPO/TC/2023 dated 27.03.2023 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.Among other grounds, the detention order is mainly attacked on the ground that there is a delay in passing the order of detention. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly contended that though the detenu was arrested on 28.01.2023, the detention order was passed only on 27.03.2023 i.e., after a considerable delay of nearly 60 days. Therefore, the detention order has to be set aside.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly objected this petition.

5.As seen from the grounds of detention, it is clear that though the detenu was arrested on 28.01.2023, the order of detention came to be passed only on 27.03.2023 and hence, there is an abnormal delay in passing the order of Detention, which caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu. 6.We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. There is no satisfactory explanation offered by the Detaining Authority for the delay in passing the order of detention. Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.17/Detention/CPO/TC/2023 dated 27.03.2023 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Manikandan S/o.Ravi, aged about 23 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.) 27.09.2023 NCC :Yes / No Internet : Yes RR To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Joint Secretary Public Law and Order Secretariat, Chennai.

3.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City Tiruchirappalli 4.The Superintendent of Prison, Tiruchirappalli Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli 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.788 of 2023 27.09.2023