The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'live and proximate link' principle to determine the validity of a detention order and the significance of unexplained delay in issuing such an order.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 12.08.2022 in C.No. 60/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2022 against the petitioner brother Esakki Pandi, male, 22 years, son of Subbaiya, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. When the matter came up for admission on 21.03.2023, this Bench made an order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

2. Mr. A.Saranraj, 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.

3. Though in the admission Board, learned counsel projected his case on the ground that remand order was not properly translated in the language which the detenu is conversant with, today in the final hearing learned counsel projected his campaign against the impugned detention order on the point of ''live and proximate link'' between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention had snapped, as detenu was arrested on 10.07.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 12.08.2022.

4. 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.

5. 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 latter facet i.e., unexplained delay.

6. 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 Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/334, Sadik Basha Yusuf Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/733, Sangeetha Vs. The Secretary to the Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1110, N.Anitha Vs. The Secretary to Government and others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023:MHC:1159 and a series of other orders in HCP cases.

7. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.

8. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 12.08.2022 bearing reference C.No.60/G/IS/Tiruppur City/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Esakki Pandi, aged 22 years, son of Thiru.Subbaiya is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.