HCP(MD)No.768 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.08.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.768 of 2025 Arumugasundari ... Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. the District Collector, Thoothukudi District. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connection with the detention order HS(M).Condfl.No.08/2025, dated 23.01.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent on the petitioner's son namely Narayanan (37/25), son of Madasamy, Door No.10/77, North Yadavar Street, Mukkani, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District, has been detained and branded as “ Goonda” under Section 31(1) of he Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982 and confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai to Page No.1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.768 of 2025 set aside the same and to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.D. Srinivasaragavan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the mother of detenu viz., Narayanan, son of Madasamy, aged about 37 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in HS(M).Condfl.No.08/2025, dated 23.01.2025 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of 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. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the document furnished at Page No.93, Volume I of the Booklet, in the English Page No.2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.768 of 2025 version, it has been stated that “the accused has been produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur on 28.12.2024”, whereas in the Tamil version at page No.95, Volume I of the Booklet it has been stated as “the accused was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur on 12.12.2024”, and the detaining authority without properly looking into the same and without seeking for clarification has mechanically passed order and thereby, it exposes non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and thereby, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order with proper application of mind and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition. 5. On perusal of the documents furnished at page Nos.93 and 95 of the Volume I of the Booklet it is seen that the contents in English version and Tamil version vary. The relevant portion of the detention order reads as follows: Page No.3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.768 of 2025 In English version: “Accused produced before me on 28.12.2024 at 7.00 pm in my residence through Mr.Mariappan, Inspector of Police...” In Tamil version: “12.12.2024 Mk; Njjp gpw;gfy; 7.00. kzpf;F vjphpia vdJ tPl;by; vd; Kd;ghf fhty; Ma;thsh; jpU.khhpag;gd; mth;fshy; M[h;gLj;jg;gl;lhh;...” In the English version it is stated that the detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 28.12.2024, whereas in the Tamil version, it is stated that the detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 12.12.2024. No clarification in this regard has been sought for, which reflects that the detention order has been passed mechanically without application of mind and thereby, it is vitiated and liable to be quashed on the ground of non application of mind. 6. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the impugned detention order. 7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention passed in HS(M).Condfl.No.08/2025, dated 23.01.2025, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Narayanan, son of Madasamy, Page No.4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.768 of 2025 aged about 37 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 28.08.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No trp To: 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. the District Collector, Thoothukudi District. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madars High Court, Madurai. Page No.5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.768 of 2025 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J. trp ORDER MADE IN HCP(MD)No.768 of 2025 DATED : 28.08.2025 Page No.6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis