K.Panchavarnam v. The Principal Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL H.C.P.(MD)No.1086 of 2023 K.Panchavarnam : Petitioner Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 09.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.
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 of the second respondent in Detention order No.50/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated
23.06.2023 and setting aside the same, directing the respondents to produce the detenue by name Baskaran, Male aged 28/2023 son of Karikalan, before this Court, now detained in the Central Prison, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jeyaram 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 29.08.2023, a Hon'ble Predecessor Coordinate Division Bench made the following order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
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, captioned matter is in the Final Hearing Board. 4.Mr.A.Jeyaram, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
5.Captioned HCP has been filed by mother of the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 23.06.2023 bearing reference No.50/BCDFGISSSV/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 but we find that Station House Officer of 'E2 Mathichiyam Police Station,' is the sponsoring authority [hereinafter 'Sponsoring Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned preventive detention order has been made by second respondent.
6.Impugned preventive 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, Slumgrabbers 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 are two adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.352 of 2023 on the file of E2 Mathichiyam Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 392 r/w. 397, 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 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 support affidavit qua captioned HCP several grounds have been raised but learned counsel for petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the
point that the detenu was arrested on 18.05.2023 but the impugned preventive detention order has been made only on 23.06.2023 resulting in 'live and proximate link' between grounds of detention and purpose of detention getting snapped.
9.Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected and time was consumed in this exercise. Considering the facts / circumstances of the case on hand and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable. 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 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 High Court being 2023/MHC/733, Sangeetha Vs. The Secretary 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 cases are in Crime No.1324 of 2020 on the file of E2 Mathichiyam Police Station (occurrence was on 03.09.2020) and in Crime No.230 of 2022 on the file of Sirumugai Police Station (occurrence was on 14.08.2022) 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 23.06.2023 bearing reference No. 50/BCDFGISSSV/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Baskaran, aged 28 years, son of Thiru.Karikalan, 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.] 15.11.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No MR P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Madurai.
To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 09.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
MR ORDER MADE IN H.C.P.(MD)No.1086 of 2023 15.11.2023