Unreasonable and unexplained delay in making a preventive detention order can render it invalid, as it snaps the 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the petitioner detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 01.07.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo Cr.M.P.No.31/Goonda/2022, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner, namely Devaraja, son of Krishnanayak, aged 32 years before this Court and set the petitioner at liberty from detention, now the petitioner detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.)

M. Sundar, J.

Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 08.07.2022 bearing reference Cr.M.P.No.31/Goonda/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.

2. Impugned detention order has been made 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 No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There are eight adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.139 of 2022 on the file of Perunanallur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 395 read with Section 397 of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.Sylvester John, Advocate, for all respondents are before us.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ''live and proximate link'' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped as petitioner was surrendered and remanded to judicial custody on 03.04.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 01.07.2022.

6. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected and time was consumed for the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of ground case, we find that this explanation of learned Prosecutor is unacceptable.

7. We remind ourselves of Sushanta Kumar Banik''s case [Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333]. To be noted, Banik case law arose under ''Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988'' [hereinafter ''PIT NDPS Act'' for the sake of brevity] in Tirupura, wherein after considering the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority and after noticing the trajectory the matter took, Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the ''live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention snapping'' point should be examined on a case to case basis. Hon''ble Supreme Court has held in Banik case law that this point has two facets. One facet is ''unreasonable delay'' and other facet is ''unexplained delay''. We find that the captioned matter falls under both the facets i.e., unreasonable delay and unexplained delay.

8. To be noted, Banik case has been respectfully followed by this Court in Gomathi Vs.The Principal Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of