Muthulakshmi v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.07.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.(MD)No.1353 of 2022 Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner/Mother of the Detenu Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by 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.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent in detention order No.70/2022 dated 30.07.2022 under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum-

Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) thereby detained Parameswaran S/o.Savadamuthu, aged about 20 years of 1/135, North area, Velayuthampalayam, Mottanampatti Vadamadurai Village, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District and now detained at Central Prison, Madurai was detained as "Goonda"and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Parameswaran S/o.Savadamuthu, aged about 20 years before this Court and set him as liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Maruthupandian For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Parameswaran, S/o.Savadamuthu, aged about 20 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.70/2022 dated 30.07.2022 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. Among other grounds, the detention order is mainly attacked on the ground that there is a delay in passing the order of detention. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly contended that though the detenu was arrested on 23.06.2022, the detention order was passed only on 30.07.2022, i.e., after a considerable delay of 37 days. Therefore, the detention order has to be set aside.

4. As seen from the grounds of detention, it is clear that though the detenu was arrested on 23.06.2022, the order of detention came to be passed only on 30.07.2022 and hence, there is an abnormal delay in passing the order of detention, which caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu.

5. 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.

6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order No.70/2022 dated 30.07.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Parameswaran, S/o.Savadamuthu, 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.) (M.N.K.,J.) 04.07.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Lm To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, 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.

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

M.S.RAMESH,J.

and M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

Lm H.C.P.(MD)No.1353 of 2022 04.07.2023