Madras High Court
Ramesh vs The Secretary To Government on 6 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2039 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2039 of 2024
Ramesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Namakkal District, Namakkal.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison -Salem,
Salem District.
5. The State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
PEW _ Tiruchengode,
Namakkal District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2039 of 2024
PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire
records, relating to petitioner sister's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14
of 1982 vide detention order, dated 26.07.2024 on the file of the second
respondent herein made in proceedings Memo
C.M.P.No.42/BOOTLEGGER/2024 [M1], quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner sister's
son namely Ravi @ Ravichandran S/o.Subramanian, aged 41 years, detained
at Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sasikumar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
-----
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Solitary criminal case registered against the detenue is the basis for
the issuance of the detention order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The detenue was arrested on 02.04.2024 and the impugned
detention order has been passed on 26.07.2024. Based on the ground case,
the petitioner is detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and there is no
adverse case against the petitioner.
4. 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.
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
hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“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
quashed the detention order on this ground.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 second
respondent in proceedings Memo C.M.P.No.42/BOOTLEGGER/2024 [M1],
dated 26.07.2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is
allowed. The detenu viz., Ravi @ Ravichandran, S/o. Subramanian, aged 41
years, confined at Central Prison, Salem, is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other
case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
06.09.2024
asi
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
asi
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Namakkal District, Namakkal.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison -Salem,
Salem District.
5. The State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
PEW - Tiruchengode,
Namakkal District.
06.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
