Vijayan @ Viji v. The Principal Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.10.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Vijayan @ Viji ... Petitioner vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in Cr.M.P.No. 07/2023 (Goonda) dated 07.06.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Vijayan @ Viji son of Kasi aged about 30 years now detained at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. Page No.1 of 8
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani 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 16.08.2023, a Hon'ble Coordinate Division Bench made the following order in the Admission Board:
Page No.2 of 8
2.
It has now become necessary to set out a thumbnail sketch of factual matrix and we do so in the paragraphs infra.Today, the captioned matter is in the Final Hearing Board. 3.
Today, the captioned matter is in the Final Hearing Board. 4.
Mr.R.Alagumani, 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 detenu assailing the 'preventive detention order dated 07.06.2023 bearing reference in Cr.M.P.No.07/2023' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of brevity and convenience]. To be noted, sponsoring authority has not been arrayed as a respondent and we find that Station House Officer of Virudhunagar East Police Station, 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 Page No.3 of 8
respondent.
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 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.
7.
There is one adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.91 of 2023 on the file of Virudhunagar East Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 450, 353, 307 and 506(ii) of 'Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for brevity]. Considering the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the case.
8.
In the final hearing today, learned counsel predicated his Page No.4 of 8
campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the point that the detenu surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Poothapandi, on 25.04.2023 and remanded to judicial custody on the same day but the impugned preventive detention order has been made only on 07.06.2023 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 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 Page No.5 of 8
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 adverse case is in Crime No.227 of 2019 on the file of Dindigul Town North Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 506(ii) IPC altered into Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 149, 302, 341 and 506(ii) of IPC [alleged occurrence on 23.04.2019], ground case is Crime No.91 of 2023 on the file of Page No.6 of 8
Virudhunagar East Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 450, 353, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC [alleged occurrence on 18.04.2023] and therefore time consumed remains unexplained. 13.
Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ. 14.
Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 07.06.2023 bearing reference in Cr.M.P.No.07/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Vijayan @ Viji, aged about 30 years, son of Thiru.Kasi, 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.) Index : Yes 30.10.2023 : Yes bala P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Madurai.
Page No.7 of 8
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
bala To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
ORDER MADE IN DATED : 30.10.2023 Page No.8 of 8