Madras High Court
K.Manoranjitham vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 28 November, 2022
HCP(MD)No.1592 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.11.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
H.C.P.(MD)No.1592 of 2022
K.Manoranjitham .. Petitioner / Grandmother of
the detenu
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Office of the District Collector,
Theni District
Theni.
3.The Superintendent,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai. .. Respondents
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1592 of 2022
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 impugned detention order of the respondent No.2 in detention order in
Detention Order No.37/2022 dated 02.05.2022 and quash the same as illegal
and directions the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu
by name Ragul, Son of Thiraviyam, aged about 23 years, now detained in
Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Sabeer Mohamed
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.)
The petitioner is the grandmother of the detenu viz., Ragul, Son
of Thiraviyam, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.37/2022 dated
02.05.2022 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under
Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under
challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1592 of 2022
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining
Authority.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas
Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly
contended that detention order was passed on the basis of a solitary case and
the bail order that was relied upon by the detaining authority was not even
furnished to the detenue in the paper book. It is further submitted that the
detaining authority was swayed by the fact that the detenu is attempting to
file a bail petition and hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the subjective satisfaction that has been arrived at by the
detaining authority at Paragraph No.5 of the order is not supported by any
materials. Therefore, the same also suffers from non application of mind.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to
substantiate the submissions, relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench
reported in 2005 (2) LW 946 [K.Thirupathi v. District Magistrate and
District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District & another].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1592 of 2022
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed
the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter.
6. The detaining authority has considered the fact that the
relatives of the detenu is attempting to file a bail petition before the
competent Court. Therefore, the detaining authority came to the conclusion
that there is an imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.
7. The satisfaction that has been arrived at by the detaining
authority is merely on surmises and it is not based on any materials that has
been placed before the detaining authority. At this point of time, it will be
relevant to take note of the Full Bench judgment, which has been referred
supra.
8. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“24. The detaining authority is required to
follow strictly and scrupulously the forms and rules of
law prescribed in that behalf or by the statutory
provision under which the order of detention is being
made after arriving at a subjective satisfaction. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1592 of 2022
event of any deviation or violation of the statutory
provisions or infraction of constitutional guarantees,
the Courts will not hesitate to quash the orders of
detention. Whatever be the jurisdiction to detain and
the slightest infraction of the constitutional guarantee
would lead to the detenu being set at liberty.
25. It is by now well settled that in all detention
laws, the orders of detention and its continuance of
detention should be in conformity with Article 22 of
the Constitution of India and slightest infraction of the
Constitutional protection enshrined therein would be a
valid ground to set the detenu at liberty.
26. There must be cogent material before the
Authority passing the detention order for inferring that
the detenu was likely to be released on bail. This
inference must be drawn from material on record and
must not be the ipse dixit of the Authority passing the
detention order.
27. In the case of a person in custody a
detention order can validly be passed if the authority
passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually
in custody; if he has reason to believe on the basis of
reliable material placed before him--
(a) that there is a real possibility of his being
released on bail, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1592 of 2022
(b) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent
him from so doing. If the authority passes an order
after recording its satisfaction in this behalf, such an
order cannot be struck down on the ground that the
proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail
and if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition
to question it before a higher Court.
28. It is neither possible nor advisable catalogue
the types of materials which can form the basis of a
detention order under the Act. That will depend on the
facts and situation of a case. That is why there is no
provision in the Act in that regard and the matter is left
to the discretion of the detaining authority. However,
the facts stated in the materials relied upon should be
true and should have a reasonable nexus with the
purpose for which the order is passed.”
9. It is clear from the above that the detention order was passed
on the basis of a solitary case and the bail order that was relied upon by the
detaining authority was not even furnished to the detenue in the paper book.
It is also seen that detenu is in custody and he has not filed any bail petition
and there are no materials to show that he is taking steps to file a bail
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1592 of 2022
petition by himself or through his relatives or it was based merely on the
presumption made by the detaining authority, the same reflects non
application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.
10. In view of the above, the detention order suffers from non
application of mind and the same is liable to be interfered with by this
Court. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
order of detention in Detention Order No.37/2022 dated 02.05.2022 passed
by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ragul, Son of
Thiraviyam, aged about 23 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless
his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(M.S.R.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.)
28.11.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1592 of 2022
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Office of the District Collector,
Theni District
Theni.
3.The Superintendent,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1592 of 2022
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
RM
H.C.P.(MD)No.1592 of 2022
28.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
