Madras High Court
K.Durgadevi vs The Chief Secretary To Government Of ... on 30 October, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2460 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2460 of 2024
K.Durgadevi ... Petitioner/Mother of the
Detenu
Vs.
1. The Chief Secretary to Government of Puducherry,
Union of Puducherry,
Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry.
2. The Secretary to Lieutenant Governor,
Rajnivas, Puducherry.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Authorised officer,
Office of the District Magistrate,
1st Floor, Vazhadhavoor Road,
Kavundanpalayam,
Puducherry - 605 009.
4. The Superintendent of Police, (East),
Puducherry.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2460 of 2024
5. The Chief Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Kalapet,
Puducherry.
6. The Inspector of Police,
Odiansalai Police Station,
Puducherry. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the
detention order in No.03/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2024 DATED 21.08.2024
passed by the 3rd respondent under the Puducherry Prevention of Anti Social
Activities Act, 2008, (Act 10 of 2010) and set aside the same and direct the
respondent to Produce the Petitioners son SRIKANTH
S/O.KAMALAKARAN AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, the detenue, now
confined in Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry before this Court and set
him at Liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.U.Yuvaraj
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Mohandass
Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The preventive detention order passed by the third respondent dated
21.08.2024 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 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 30.05.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 21.08.2024. This fact is
not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry).
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
proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby, had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 third respondent,
No.03/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2024 dated 21.08.2024, is hereby set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Srikanth, aged 19
years, S/o. Kamalakaran confined at Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry is
directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with
any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
30.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Chief Secretary to Government of Puducherry,
Union of Puducherry,
Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry.
2. The Secretary to Lieutenant Governor,
Rajnivas, Puducherry.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Authorised officer,
Office of the District Magistrate,
1st Floor, Vazhadhavoor Road,
Kavundanpalayam,
Puducherry - 605 009.
4. The Superintendent of Police, (East),
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
veda
30.10.2024
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
