Allowed

Geetha v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC16 Oct 2023HCP(MD)/629/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order against the petitioner's son. The court quashed the order, holding that the explanation for the unexplained delay between arrest and detention was unacceptable, thus vitiating the order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned preventive detention order set aside and detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Geetha Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

H.C.P(MD)No.629 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.10.2023

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶7

H.C.P(MD)No.629 of 2023

Geetha

.. Petitioner

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶12

Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni,

¶14

Theni District.

¶15

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

¶16

4.The Inspector of Police, Rayappanpatti Police Station, Cumbam North Circle, Theni District.

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

Prayer:- 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 in Detention Order No.30 of 2023 dated

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

1/8

¶21

H.C.P(MD)No.629 of 2023

¶22

03.05.2023 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son namely Gowsigan, aged about 22 years, son of Murugesan, now confined at Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶24

ORDER

¶25

[ Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J. ]

¶26

Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the

¶27

sake of brevity] has been filed by the mother of the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 03.05.2023 bearing Detention Order No.30 of 2023' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of brevity and convenience]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as the impugned

¶28

preventive detention order has been made by second respondent.

¶29

2. Impugned preventive detention order has been made under

¶30

'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

2/8

¶33

H.C.P(MD)No.629 of 2023

¶34

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.

¶35

3.There is no adverse case. This solitary case which is the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.76 of 2023 on the file of Rayappanpatti Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147 and 363 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and subsequently altered into Sections 147, 120-B, 294(b), 342, 323, 364(A) and 506(ii) of IPC and again altered into Sections 147, 120-B, 294(b), 342, 323, 364(A) and 506(ii) of IPC and 174 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)' [hereinafter 'CrPC' for the sake of brevity 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.

¶36

4.Mr.R.Karunanidhi, learned counsel on record for petitioner

¶37

and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

3/8

¶40

H.C.P(MD)No.629 of 2023

¶41

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as date of arrest in the ground case is 14.03.2023 but the impugned preventive detention order has been made only on 03.05.2023.

¶42

6. 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.

¶43

7. 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

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

4/8

¶46

H.C.P(MD)No.629 of 2023

¶47

of detention snapping' point should be examined on a case to case basis.

¶48

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.

¶49

8. 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.

¶50

9. To be noted, the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is a solitary case viz., Crime No76 of 2023 on the file of

¶51

Rayappanpatti Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147 and

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

5/8

¶54

H.C.P(MD)No.629 of 2023

¶55

363 of IPC and subsequently altered into Sections 147, 120-B, 294(b), 342,

¶56

323, 364(A) and 506(ii) of IPC and again altered into Sections 147, 120-B, 294(b), 342, 323, 364(A) and 506(ii) of IPC and 174 of CrPC.

¶57

10 . Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.

¶58

11. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned

¶59

preventive detention order dated 03.05.2023 bearing reference Detention Order No.30 of 2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Gowsigan, aged 22 years, son of Thiru.Murugesan, 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.

¶60

Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes ps

¶61

P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Madurai.

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

6/8

¶64

H.C.P(MD)No.629 of 2023

¶65

¶66