BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 02.06.2023 Pronounced on : 22.06.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN H.C.P.(MD)No.1293 of 2022 Harishpandi .. Petitioner/Detenu Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai. .. 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 relating to the Detention Order passed by the 2^nd respondent in No.

53/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 12.07.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu, by name, Harishpandi, son of Poomari, aged about 21 years, now detained as “Goonda” at Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

The detenu has involved in the crimes like extortion and robbery etc., and hence he was arrested on 24.05.2022 in the ground case in Crime No.231 of 2022. From the cases registered against the petitioner, the detaining authority arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu habitually doing the offence of committing extortion and robbery, which is detrimental to the social interest and slapped the impugned detention order after following the due procedure and applying the statutory requirement 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 (hereinafter called as “the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982) by branding the detenu as 'GOONDA'. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following points and seeks for the indulgence of this Court to quash the impugned detention order:

2.1. Eventhough the petitioner was arrested on 24.05.2022, the detention order was passed only on 12.07.2022 and hence, the 40 days delay in passing the detention order has not properly explained by the detaining authority and hence, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

2.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he made a request to give legal assistance before the Advisory Board by sending representation dated 26.07.2022 and the same was not considered by the Advisory Board. So, there is a violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

3. Per contra, Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that he is involved in number of cases and hence, the delay in passing the detention order legally consumed time in order to collect all the connected materials. Further, the Sponsoring Authority collected materials consist of 354 pages from various sources and translate the relied document in both vernacular as well as English and thereafter prepared 11 number of booklets running pages around 3575 pages and each booklet contains 354 pages. Hence, the delay is bonafide one. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenu has no right to seek the legal assistance before the Advisory Board, apart from that the detenu did not annexed any proof for the proper representation sent to the Advisory Board. Further, it is not the case of the detenu that the detaining authority appeared through legal personality and the detenu was not allowed to represent through the legal practitioner and hence, he seeks for the dismissal of this Habeas Corpus Petition.

4. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on both side and perused the materials placed on reco