IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.06.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND T HE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER M OHAN H.C.P.No.1021 of 2024 V.Vijayan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The District Collector, District Magistrate, District Officer, Ranipet District.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District, Ranipet. 4.The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records culminating in the passing of the order of detention the petitioner's son of the defence under Act 1982 as Drug Offender vide detention order in No.B3/D.O.No.07/2024 dated 14.02.2024 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent herein to produce the body and person of the detenue by name V.Srinivasan, S/o.Vijayan, aged about 37 years before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty from the detention now contained at Central Prison, Salem.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vijayasankar For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND S UNDER MOHAN , J.

The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu Srinivasan, aged about 37 years, S/o.Vijayan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 14.02.2024 slapped on his son, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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 14 of 1982].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 28.12.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 14.02.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura'

reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813', when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of detention order and the actual arrest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the detenu. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:-

“20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and invalid because the “live and proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. A question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others', reported in '2023 SCC OnLine Ma