Madras High Court
Alagusethupathi vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 11 June, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.1351 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
H.C.P.(MD) No.1351 of 2024
Alagusethupathi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District. ... 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 the detention
order of the Respondent No.2 in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.28/2024 dated
28.08.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or
person of the detenu by name Alagusethupathi, son of Alagusundaram, aged
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 02:30:55 pm )
H.C.P.(MD) No.1351 of 2024
about 26 years, now detained as Goonda at Madurai Central Prison before this
Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : DR.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]
The petitioner is the detenu viz., Alagusethupathi, son of
Alagusundaram, aged about 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV.No.28/2024 holding him to be a
"Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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 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, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the
act provides for making representation to the District Collector before the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 02:30:55 pm )
confirmation by the Government, however, the detention order is silent to that
aspect and thereby the petitioner was prevented for making representation to the
Government before the confirmation. In support of the contention, the learned
counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in Raja Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home,
Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009 and
others in H.C.P.(MD)No.1372 of 2022.
4. The Division Bench of this Court, after referring the earlier
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in S.Thai vs. State rep. by The
Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli & Others
reported in 2000 (3) MWN(Cri.) 142 and the another case in State of
Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya reported in (2000) 7 SCC 463, has
held as follows:-
"11. Hence, in view of law laid down in State of
Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya reported in (2000) 7 SCC 463
was re-affirmed by the Hon’ble three Judges bench of the Supreme Court
in Crl.A.No:728 of 2000, this court is inclined to accept the contention of
the learned counsel for the detenue that the detaining authority in the
impugned detention order has not informed the right of detenu to make a
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 02:30:55 pm )
representation before the detaining authority within 12 days, which
resulted in infraction of Article 22 of Constitution of India. so, the
impugned detention order is liable to be quashed."
5. We have perused the detention, it does not mention about the
petitioner's right to make a representation to the District Collect and thereby the
detention order is vitiated.
6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in BDFGISSSV.No.28/2024, dated 28.08.2024, passed by the second
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Alagusethupathi, aged about 26 years,
son of Alagusundaram, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is
required in connection with any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.]
11.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
am
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 02:30:55 pm )
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 02:30:55 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA , J.
am
11.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 02:30:55 pm )
