Madras High Court
Sivasankar vs The Addl. Chief Secretary To The ... on 17 February, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.78 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
H.C.P.No.78 of 2025
Sivasankar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Office of the Commissioner of Police
(Goondas Section)
Avadi City, Avadi, Chennai 600 050
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai 600 066
4.The Inspector of Police
(Land Dispute Team-I)
Central Crime Branch
Avadi City, Avadi, Chennai ... 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 connected with
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.78 of 2025
the order of the 2nd respondent herein in, Memo No..192/BCDFGISSSV
/2024 dated 09.11.2024 passed against the petitioner's father of the detenu
namely Babu, S/o.Ramachandran, aged about 58 years, who is confined at
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 and set aside the same,
consequently, directing the respondents herein to produce the body and
person of the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Ms.R.Saritha
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.M.Sylvestor John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the son of the detenu viz. Babu,
S/o.Ramachandran, aged about 58 years, has come forward with this
petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent
dated 09.11.2024 slapped on his father, branding him as "GOONDA" 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 14 of 1982].
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 10.09.2024 and
thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 09.11.2024. 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 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
on 09.11.2024 in No.192/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Babu,
S/o.Ramachandran, aged about 58 years, is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other
case.
[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.]
17.02.2025
(3/3)
kas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
kas
To
1.The Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Office of the Commissioner of Police
(Goondas Section)
Avadi City, Avadi, Chennai 600 050
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai 600 066
4.The Inspector of Police
(Land Dispute Team-I)
Central Crime Branch
Avadi City, Avadi, Chennai
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
17.02.2025
(3/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
