Allowed

S.Kani v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC25 Apr 2024HCP(MD)/243/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court held that an inordinate, unexplained delay of one month between arrest and the detention order vitiates the order by snapping the live link between grounds and purpose, necessitating the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in P.D.No.41 of 2023 dated 10.08.2023 is set aside, and the detenu, Satheesh, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other cas

S.Kani Vs The Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.243 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶7

H.C.P.(MD) No.243 of 2024

S.Kani

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 8_

¶15

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

¶16

H.C.P.(MD) No.243 of 2024

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in P.D.No.41 of 2023, dated 10.08.2023 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu viz., the petitioner’s son ie., Satheesh, aged about 25 years, S/o.Serma Durai, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]

¶22

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Satheesh, son of Serma Durai, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.41 of 2023, dated 10.08.2023, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.

¶23

Page 2 of 8

¶24

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

¶25

H.C.P.(MD) No.243 of 2024

¶26

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.

¶27

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus

¶28

petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that there is an inordinate delay between the arrest of the detenu and passing the impugned detention order. In this case, the detenu was arrested on 03.07.2023, and the impugned detention order came to be passed only on 10.08.2023, i.e., after a lapse of one month. This inordinate delay in passing the detention order would vitiate the same. He further submitted that there is no live and proximate link between the date of arrest and the date of the detention order. Hence, on this ground, the present impugned detention order is also liable to be set aside.

¶29

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

¶30

respondents would submit that three adverse cases were registered against the

¶31

_____________ Page 3 of 8_

¶32

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

¶33

H.C.P.(MD) No.243 of 2024

¶34

detenu in the very same police station. He would further submit that though there was a delay in passing the impugned detention order, on that score alone, it cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and therefore prays for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

¶35

5. Though it has been stated by the respondents that collection of details has caused the delay in passing the impugned detention order, a perusal of the grounds of the detention order passed by the detaining authority shows that the adverse cases are of the same Police Station. The detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 03.07.2023 and the detention order was passed on 10.08.2023. This shows an inordinate delay in passing the detention order, which is also unexplained. The live and proximate link between the arrest of the detenu and the need for passing the order of detention has snapped. Thus, on this sole ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

¶36

6. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1333 , when there was an inordinate delay

¶37

_____________ Page 4 of 8_

¶38

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

¶39

H.C.P.(MD) No.243 of 2024

¶40

from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of actual arrest and the date of detention order, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped throwing a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order unless such delay is satisfactorily explained and consequently making it invalid. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

¶41

"20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and invalid because the “live and proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. A question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands

¶42

Page 5 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

H.C.P.(MD) No.243 of 2024

¶45

unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case."

¶46

7. In view of the above, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, thereby vitiating and invalidating the detention order.

¶47

8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in P.D.No.41 of 2023, dated 10.08.2023, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Satheesh, son of Serma Durai, aged about 25 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶48

[A.D.J.C.,J.] & [K.R.S.,J.]

¶49

25.04.2024

¶50

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶51

akv

¶52

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

¶53

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

¶54

H.C.P.(MD) No.243 of 2024

¶55

¶56

1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶57

Chennai-600 009.

¶58

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶59

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

¶60

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

¶61

Page 7 of 8

¶62

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

¶63

H.C.P.(MD) No.243 of 2024

¶64

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶65

akv

¶66

H.C.P.(MD) No.243 of 2024

¶67

25.04.2024

¶68

_____________ Page 8 of 8_

¶69

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

S.Kani v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kani v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Radha Vs The Additional Secretary to Government of India

Shagaya Rani Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Maarikannu Vs The State represented by its The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

S.Maria Jenitta Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Shanmugam Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Malaiyammal Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government