SUDALAIVADIVU Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Premkumar, son of Mundasamy, aged about 19 years. The detenu has been detained by order in M.H.S. Confdl. No.99/2017, dated 22.09.2017, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

(3.) Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the two grounds. Firstly, learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the order of detention is dated 22.09.2017 and the materials in support thereof have been served on the detenue on 29.09.2017 i.e., after the period of 5 days permitted under Section 8 of 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). Further, the detenu was arrested in the ground case on 29.08.2017; whereas the Detention order was passed on 22.09.2017, i.e., after a lapse of 24 days. This inordinate delay in passing of detention order would vitiate the same. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005 MLJ (Crl.) 752 (Ramesh v. District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli District and another) . Hence, on the above grounds, the detention order is liable to be set aside.