Chithra v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.11.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Mrs.Chithra ... Petitioner vs.
1. The State rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Special Prison for Women, Central Prison, Madurai.
4. The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul District.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of detention made in Detention Order No.39/2023 dated 24.06.2023 on the file of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, the 2nd respondent herein, branded the Page No.1 of 10
petitioner/the detenue by name Chithra W/o Alagarsamy, aged about 36 years as 'DRUG OFFENDER' and now she is confined in Special Prison for Women, Central Prison, Madurai and quash the impugned order of detention and set the detenue at liberty by producing her before this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.J.Ebenezer Charles for Mr.G.Sakthivel For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of brevity] was listed in the Admission Board on 11.08.2023, a Hon'ble Coordinate Division Bench made the following order in the Admission Board:
Page No.2 of 10
2.
It has now become necessary to set out a thumbnail sketch of factual matrix and we do so in the paragraphs infra. 3.
Today, the captioned matter is in the Final Hearing Board. 4.
Mr.T.J.Ebenezer Charles, learned counsel representing learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
5.
Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been filed by the detenue assailing the 'preventive detention order dated 24.06.2023 bearing reference Detention Order No.39/2023' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of brevity and convenience]. To be noted, 4th respondent is the sponsoring authority [hereinafter 'sponsoring authority' for convenience and brevity] and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned preventive detention order has been made by second respondent.
Page No.3 of 10
6.
Impugned detention order has been made 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 No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Drug Offender' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of Act 14 of 1982.
7.
The ground case which constitutes sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.142 of 2023 on the file of Batlagundu Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) and 25 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, [hereinafter 'NDPS Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience]. Considering the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the case.
Page No.4 of 10
8.
In the final hearing today, learned counsel predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the point that the detenue was arrested on 28.03.2023 but the impugned preventive detention order has been made only on 24.06.2023 resulting in live and proximate link between grounds and purpose of detention getting snapped.
9.
Mr.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that materials had to be collected and time was consumed in this exercise.
10.
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 Page No.5 of 10
grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping' point should be examined on a case to case basis. 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. 11.
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 reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1159 and a series of similar orders in HCP cases. 12.
To be noted, the impugned preventive detention order is predicated on a solitary case viz., Crime No.142 of 2023 on the file of Page No.6 of 10
Batlagundu Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) and 25 of NDPS Act and therefore this solitary case is the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order. 13.
This Bench is informed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in the solitary case, final report dated 12.09.2023 has been filed on 21.09.2023 vide E-filing No.03/2023 before the NDPS Court, Madurai. If the detenue moves for regular bail in the Trial Court, we make it clear that the Trial Court shall consider the bail petition on its own merits and in accordance with law [more particularly, NDPS Act and Section 37 thereat] untrammeled by this order which has been made in a habeas legal drill for the limited purpose of testing the impugned preventive detention order.
14.
Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ. 15.
Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 24.06.2023 bearing reference in Page No.7 of 10
Detention Order No.39/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenue Tmt.Chithra wife of Alagarsamy, aged 36 years, 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.) 06.11.2023 Index : Yes / No : Yes / No bala P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Special Prison for Women, Nilakkottai.
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Special Prison for Women, Central Prison, Madurai.
4. The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul District.
Page No.8 of 10
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
Page No.9 of 10
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
bala ORDER MADE IN DATED : 06.11.2023 Page No.10 of 10