K.Kalavathi v. The Principal Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.07.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR K.Kalavathi .. Petitioner vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.19 of 2022 dated 02.11.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu, the petitioner's brother-in-law, namely Ruban

@ Rubanraj, S/o. Murugan, aged about 27 years, now detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.] The petitioner is the sister-in-law of the detenu viz., Ruban @ Rubanraj, S/o. Murugan, aged about 27 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by order in Cr.M.P.No.19 of 2022 dated 02.11.2022, holding him to be a 'Drug Offender', as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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 03.09.2022, the detention order was passed only on 02.11.2022 i.e., after a considerable delay of nearly months. Therefore, the detention order has to be set aside.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed in S.C.No.89 of 2023 and is pending before the Essential Commodities Court, Pudukottai.

5. As seen from the grounds of detention, it is clear that though the detenu was arrested on 03.09.2022, the order of detention came to be passed only on 02.11.2022 and hence, there is an abnormal delay in passing the order of Detention, which caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu.

6. 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.

7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.19 of 2022 dated 02.11.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ruban @ Rubanraj, S/o. Murugan, aged about 27 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.) 19.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order mbi

To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

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

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

mbi 19.07.2023