HCP(MD)No.755 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 28.10.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

H.C.P.(MD)No.755 of 2022

Sureshkumar

... Petitioner / Detenu

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,

Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,

O/o. The District Collector and District Magistrate,

Virudhunagar District.

3.The Superintendent of Prison,

Madurai Central Prison,

Madurai District.

...Respondents

PRAYER:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating

connected with the detention order passed of the second respondent in

Cr.M.P.No.14/2022 (Goonda), dated 20.04.2022 and quash the same and

direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu, by name

Suershkumar son of Shankar aged about 28 years, now detained at Madurai

Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

Page 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

HCP(MD)No.755 of 2022

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.Alagumani

For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

J. NISHA BANU,J.

and

N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.

The petitioner is the detenu viz., Sureshkumar, S/o.Sankar, aged about

28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his

order in Cr.M..P.No.14/2022, dated 20.04.2022 holding him to be a

"Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of

1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We

have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3.Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus

Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly

focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural

Page 2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

HCP(MD)No.755 of 2022

safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by

placing authorities, submitted that the representation made by the petitioner

was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained

delay.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner principally raised two

grounds. The first ground is that the similar order that was relied upon by

the detaining authority is totally illegible and the same resulted in the detenu

not being able to make an effective representation. The second ground that

was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tamil

translation of the similar order passed in Crl.O.P.No.7900 of 2019 was not

furnished in spite of the request made through a representation dated

06.05.2022.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the

Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. He would submit that though

there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the

impugned detention order cannot be quashed. According to the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu

Page 3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

HCP(MD)No.755 of 2022

and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under

Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

6.The leaned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the

investigation has been completed and a final report has been filed before the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sivakasi and the same is yet to be taken

on file.

7.The Detention Order in question was passed on 20.04.2022. The

petitioner made a representation dated 06.05.2022. Thereafter, the

Government considered the matter and passed the order