Madras High Court
P.Palanisamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 November, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2750 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.2750 of 2024
P.Palanisamy ... Petitioner/Cousin Brother of the
detenue
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of District Magistrate and District Collector,
Namakkal District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Salem.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2750 of 2024
5. The Inspector of Police,
Tiruchengode Rural Station,
Namakkal. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records relating to the
petitioners cousin brother detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 OF 1982 vide
detention order dated 06.09.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein
made in proceeding Memo CMP. NO., 54/ GOONDA/2024 (M1) quash the
same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce
the petitioner's cousin brother namely senthil kumar son of late Shanmugam
aged 43 years before this court and set him at liberty from detention, now
the petitioner's cousin brother at Central Prison, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.Deepanuday
For Respondents : Mr. R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 06.09.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in
passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 28.07.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 06.09.2024. This fact is
not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura',
reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813', when there was an inordinate delay
from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise,
between the date of detention order and the actual arrest, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had held that the live and proximate link, between the
grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the
detenu. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
hereunder:-
“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 unexplained depends on the facts
and circumstances of each case.”
6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar
Banik's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Gomathi Vs.
Principal Secretary to Government and Others', reported in '2023 SCC
OnLine Mad 6332', had held that when there is an inordinate delay from
the date of arrest/date of proposal till the order of detention, the live and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby, had
quashed the detention order on this ground.
7. In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu',
reported in '(2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428', this Court had held that the delay of
36 days in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu would
snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of
detention. Hence, in view of the unexplained and inordinate delay in
passing the order of detention, after the arrest of the detenu, the detention
order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent,
in proceedings C.M.P.No.54/GOONDA/2024/(M1) dated 06.09.2024, is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Senthilkumar, aged 43 years, S/o. Shanmugam confined at Central Prison,
Salem is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in
connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
13.11.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of District Magistrate and District Collector,
Namakkal District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Salem.
5. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal.
6. The Inspector of Police,
Tiruchengode Rural Station,
Namakkal.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
veda
13.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
