The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict requirement of timely communication of grounds for a detention order under Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982, ensuring the detenu's opportunity to make a representation against the order.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records in connection with the detention order passed bin C.O.C.No.27/2022 dated 20.07.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Manikandan, S/o.Gurusamy, male aged 39 years, who is detained in Central Prison, thiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by the wife of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 20.07.2022 bearing reference C.O.C.No.27/2022'' [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 ''Drug Offender'' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There are two adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.205 of 2022 on the file of Kuthalam Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 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. Ms.S.Vasavi Sridevi, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

5. Notwithstanding very many averments made in the support affidavit Ms.Vasavi Sridevi, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the grounds on which the impugned detention order has been made has not been served within five days from the date of detention. Learned counsel submits that the formal date of detention qua impugned detention order is 20.07.2022. Learned counsel also points out that the grounds on which the impugned detention order has been made was communicated to the detenu only on 27.07.2022 at 16.10 hours. In support of her contention, learned counsel placed before us the grounds which was served on the detenu in the form of a booklet. A scanned reproduction of the relevant portion in the booklet is as follows:

“IMAGE”

6. Learned counsel submits that the above is an infraction of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982 which mandates that the grounds on which the detention order is made ought to be communicated to the detenu as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention. Elaborating on her submission in this direction, learned counsel submitted that this has afflicted the statutory mandate of affording the detenu earliest opportunity of making a representation to the State Government against the impugned order of detention.

7. On Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982, we have already taken a view interalia vide order dated 19.01.2023 in H.C.P.No.1182 of 2022 reported in neutral citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/193 [M.Shylaja Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others] and series of other HCP matters [we are informed that this has been reported in SCC online also and the citation is 2023 SCC Online Mad 289].

8. As regards the aforementioned Shylaja''s case on facts the matter arose under Act 14 of 1982 and it was a case where the grounds on which the impugned detention orders were made were not served on the detenus within five days.