Habeas corpus petition by the wife of a detenu branded a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The grounds booklet was served six days after detention, beyond the five-day limit in Section 8(1). The court quashed the detention order and directed release.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
H.C.P.No.357 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 18.03.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.357 of 2024
Gowri
… Petitioner
Vs.
1/7
H.C.P.No.357 of 2024
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in 558/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 08.11.2023 against the petitioner's husband Kumaran @ Tinger Kumaran, Son of Sakkarapani, aged about 46 years and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu who has been detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, currently confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For petitioner : Mr.K. Shanmugam For Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Aravind.C
O R D E R
M.S.RAMESH, J. and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner, wife of the detenu namely Kumaran @ Tinker
Kumaran, Son of Chakkarapani, aged about 46 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 08.11.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
2/7
H.C.P.No.357 of 2024
[Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3/7
H.C.P.No.357 of 2024
the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order
has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government. In the present case, it is seen that the booklet has been served on the sixth day and hence, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
(M.S.R., J.) (S.M., J.) 18.03.2024
bga
Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No 4/7
H.C.P.No.357 of 2024
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
5/7
H.C.P.No.357 of 2024
To
6/7
H.C.P.No.357 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
bga
H.C.P.No.357 of 2024
18.03.2024
7/7
1 issue framed by the court
Was the detention order invalid because the grounds of detention booklet was served on the sixth day instead of within five days as required under Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gowri
The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal
Inspector of Police, D-3, Ice House Police Station
M.S.Ramesh
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
