Muthulakshmi v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of brevity and convenience] has been filed by the mother of the detenu assailing the 'preventive detention order dated 30.05.2023 bearing reference Detention Order No.32/2023' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of brevity and convenience]. To be noted, sponsoring authority has not been arrayed as a respondent and we find that Station House Officer of Patteeswaram Police Station, Thanjavur, is the sponsoring authority [hereinafter 'sponsoring authority' for the sake of convenience and brevity] and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned preventive detention order has been made by second respondent. Page No.2 of 9

¶2Captioned HCP was listed for admission on 19.09.2023 and a coordinate Hon'ble predecessor Bench made the following order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶3Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of Page No.3 of 9 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.

¶4There is no adverse case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.117 of 2023 on the file of Patteeswaram Police Station, Thanjavur, for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(ii) of 'Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for the sake of brevity] subsequently altered as Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC. Considering the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the case.

¶5Mr.S.Anandha Rajagopal, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

¶6In the final hearing today, learned counsel predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the point Page No.4 of 9 that the detenu was arrested on 19.04.2023 but the impugned preventive detention order has been made only on 30.05.2023 resulting in live and proximate link between grounds and purpose of detention getting snapped.

¶7Mr.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that materials had to be collected/collated and time was consumed in this exercise. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned State Additional Public Prosecutor is unacceptable.

¶8We 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 of detention snapping' point should be Page No.5 of 9 examined on a case to case basis. 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.

¶9To 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.

¶10To be noted, the impugned preventive detention order is predicated on a solitary case viz., Crime No.117 of 2023 for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC subsequently altered as Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC Page No.6 of 9 [alleged occurrence on 18.04.2023] and therefore this solitary case is the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order.

¶11Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.

¶12Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 30.05.2023 bearing reference Detention Order No.32/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.R.Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of Thiru.Raju, 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. (M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.)

17.10.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes : Yes / No PKN P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in District Jail, Pudukottai. Page No.7 of 9 To

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

¶2The District Collector and District Magistrate, District Collectorate, Thanjavur District.

¶3The Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli, Thiruchirappalli District.

4.The District Jail, Pudukottai.

¶5The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Page No.8 of 9 HCP(MD)No.1171oofo2023 M.SUNDAR,oJ. and R.SAKTHIVEL,oJ. PKN ORDERoMADEoIN HCP(MD)No.1171oofo2023 DATEDo:o17.10.2023 PageoNo.9oofo9

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.10.2023 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Muthulakshmi ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, District Collectorate, Thanjavur District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli, Thiruchirappalli District. ... Respondents 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 Preventive Detention Order No. 32/2023 dated 30.05.2023 passed by the second respondent on petitioner's son namely, Kumar, Male,Age 38/2023 S/o.Raju, has been detained and branded as "Goonda" in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Page No.1 of 9 of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 and confined at Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli, Thiruchirappalli District and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anandha Rajagopal For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor