Unexplained delay in passing a detention order can lead to the setting aside of the order, as established in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case.

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 of the second respondent in detention order in C.No.81/G/IS/2022 dated 07.12.2022 passed under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and also direct the respondents to produce the petitioner''s son Saravanan @ Noi Saravanan, son of Senthil Kumar, aged 25 years, now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty.)

M. SUNDAR, J

1. When the captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] was listed in the Admission Board on 10.02.2023, this Court made the following order:

''''Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 02.02.2023 inter alia assailing a detention order dated 07.12.2022 bearing reference C.No.81/G/IS/2022 made by ''second respondent'' [hereinafter ''Detaining Authority'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.

2. Mother of the detenu is the petitioner.

3. Mr.B.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel on record for habeas corpus petitioner is before us. Learned counsel expresses regret for not representing the matter in the previous listing. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ground case qua the detenu is for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] in Crime No.655 of 2022 on the file of E-1, Singanallur Police Station.

4. The aforementioned detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' under Section 2(f) of ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forestoffenders, 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].

5. The detention order has been assailed inter alia on the ground that there is a delay of more than a month in passing the detention order and the same has not been properly explained by the Detaining Authority.

6. Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four weeks.

7. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice for all respondents. List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly. ''

2. The aforementioned order made in the 10.02.2023 Admission listing shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order which means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the order in the Admission listing shall be used in the instant order also.

3. There are two adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.655 of 2022 on the file of E1 Singanallur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned preventive detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr.B.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor 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 date of arrest and remand in the ground case is 01.11.2022 but the impugned detention order has been made only on 07.12.2022.

6. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, submits to the contrary by saying that materials had to be collected and time