Allowed

Layo v. The Addl Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC10 Dec 2024HCP(MD)/749/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition by a detenu held as a Drug Offender under preventive detention. The court found a 36-day unexplained delay between arrest and detention order, snapping the live and proximate link between grounds and purpose of detention, and quashed the detention order.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 03.05.2024 quashed; detenu to be set at liberty forthwith.

Layo Vs The Addl Chief Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

1 H.C.P.(MD)NO.749 OF 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA H.C.P.(MD)No.749 of 2024

¶8

Layo ... Petitioner / Detenu

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶11

The District Magistrate and District Collector, O/o.the District Magistrate and District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶12

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

¶13

Prayer: Habeas Corpus petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in H.S(M) Confdl. No.51/2024 dated 03.05.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body ro person of the detenu by name Layo, S/o.Sakkriyas, aged about 33 years, now detained as “Drug Offender” at Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶14

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

¶15

1/5

¶16

2 H.C.P.(MD)NO.749 OF 2024

¶17

For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

The petitioner was detained as Drug Offender by the second respondent vide order dated 03.05.2024. The detenu was arrested on 28.03.2024. There is a gap of 36 days between the date of arrest and the date of detention order. The case of the petitioner is that on account of the delay in passing the detention order, the live and proximate link between the grounds and the purpose of detention stood snapped.

¶23

The petitioner's counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2022 Livelaw (SC) 813) (Sushanta Kumar

¶24

Banik Vs. State of Tripura). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said

¶25

decision held as follows:-

¶26

“20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above

¶27

decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶29

3 H.C.P.(MD)NO.749 OF 2024

¶30

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

¶31

We are satisfied that the aforesaid decision clearly applies to the

¶32

case on hand. The detention order is quashed on this ground. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise warranted by law. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.

¶33

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (R. POORNIMA, J.) 10^th December 2024

¶34

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PMU Note : Issue order copy on 11.12.2024.

¶35

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

¶36

3/5

¶37

4 H.C.P.(MD)NO.749 OF 2024

¶38

To:

¶39

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶40

The District Magistrate and District Collector, O/o.the District Magistrate and District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

4/5

¶45

5 H.C.P.(MD)NO.749 OF 2024

¶46

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND

R. POORNIMA, J.

PMU

H.C.P.(MD)No.749 of 2024

¶51

10.12.2024

¶52

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

¶53

5/5

Layo v. The Addl Chief Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Layo v. The Addl Chief 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

The Branch Manager Vs Kalayarasi

The Commissioner of Customs Vs Srinidhi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.

Aamina Beevi Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Sudhakar Vs The Inspector of Police

Henrilouise Vs The Inspector of Police

Parvathi Vs The Principal Secretary to Government