S.Arumugam v. The Additional Chief 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 S.Arumugam ... Petitioner vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Detention Order No. 31/2023 dated 09.05.2023 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely, Muthuraj, S/o. Sait, aged 43 years who is now detained in Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.
Page No.1 of 9
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susi Kumar 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 30.08.2023, a Hon'ble Coordinate Division Bench made the following order in the Admission Board:
Page No.2 of 9
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.C.Susi Kumar, 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 brother of the detenu assailing the 'preventive detention order dated 09.05.2023 bearing reference Detention Order No.31/2023' [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 Dindigul Taluk 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 respondent.
Page No.3 of 9
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 no adverse case. The ground case which constitutes sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No. 112 of 2023 on the file of Dindigul Taluk Police Station, registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['Cr.P.C' for brevity] and subsequently altered into Sections 457, 302 and 380 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 campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the point Page No.4 of 9
that the detenu was arrested on 23.02.2023 but the impugned preventive detention order has been made only on 09.05.2023 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 Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is 'unreasonable Page No.5 of 9
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.112 of 2023 on the file of Dindigul Taluk Police Station, registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and subsequently altered into Sections 457, 302 and 380 of IPC [alleged occurrence on 17.02.2023] and therefore this solitary case is the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order. Page No.6 of 9
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 09.05.2023 bearing reference in Detention Order No.31/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Muthuraj, aged about 43 years, son of Thiru.Sait, 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 / No 30.10.2023 : Yes / No bala P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Madurai.
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
Page No.7 of 9
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
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.
Page No.8 of 9
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
bala ORDER MADE IN DATED : 30.10.2023 Page No.9 of 9