[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Mariyalawrence vs The State Of Tamil on 23 March, 2026
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.03.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
H.C.P.(MD)No.137 of 2026
Mariyalawrence .. Petitioner / detenu
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil,
represented by
the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (xiv)Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents
Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call
for the entire records connected with the detention order of the second
respondent in M.H.S.Confdl.No.83 of 2025, dated 19.07.2025 and quash the
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu
by name, Mariyalawrence, son of Siluvai Anthony, aged about 52 years,
detained as “Goonda” at Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and
set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Dr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)
The petitioner is the detenu, by name, Mariyalawrence, son of Siluvai
Anthony, aged about 52 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.83 of 2025, dated 19.07.2025
holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
3. Apart from the other grounds raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, one of the main ground that was raised by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the detention order came
to be passed by the Detaining Authority on 19.07.2025 based on the
affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority dated 03.07.2025. As on that date, the
Sponsoring Authority has not made reference to any of the documents that
came into existence subsequent thereto.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
Detaining Authority passed the order on 19.07.2025 by relying upon
documents dated 18.07.2025 and this clearly shows that the Detaining
Authority has acted upon certain documents which were not eveb referred
by the Sponsoring Authority.
5. We have carefully gone through the affidavit of the Sponsoring
Authority dated 03.07.2025. In this affidavit, reference has been made only
up to the extension of remand made till 04.07.2025 and the documents that
accompanied this affidavit pertained to what was available up to
03.07.2025. However, when the Detaining Authority passed the detention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
order on 19.07.2025, the extension of remand order dated 18.07.2025 also
forms part of the paper book and the Detaining Authority, while relying
upon this document, came to a conclusion that the remand has been
extended till 01.08.2025. Obviously, these documents were not even relied
upon by the Sponsoring Authority when the affidavit was placed before the
Detaining Authority. Therefore, the Detaining Authority has considered
certain materials which were not even relied upon by the Sponsoring
Authority while filing the affidavit. The same vitiates the detention order.
6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.83 of 2025, dated 19.07.2025passed by the
second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Mariyalawrence, son of
Siluvai Anthony, aged about 52 years, is directed to be released forthwith
unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(N.A.V.,J..) (K.K.R.K.,J.,)
23.03.2026
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TSG
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
TSG
23.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
