HCP No. 300 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR HCP No. 300 of 2026 Selvi W/o.Kesavan, ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam. 3. The Superintendent of Police Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore 5. The Inspector of Police Nagappattinam Town Police Station Nagappattinam District ..Respondent(s) Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ or order in the nature of writ to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 09.12.2025 in C.O.C.No.47/2025 against the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 300 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 petitioner's son Alex @ Alexpandiyan, male, aged 29 years, S/o.Kesavan who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty . For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Balaji For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Alex @ Alexpandiyan, male, aged 29 years, S/o.Kesavan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 09.12.2025 bearing reference C.O.C.No.47/2025 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982]. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 300 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 unexplained delay in serving the booklet. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the detention order was passed on 09.12.2025, the booklet was served on the detenu only on 16.12.2025, which is in violation of mandatory provision under Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 4. In the instant case, though the detenue was detained on 09.12.2025 through the detention order, the booklet was served only on 16.12.2025. Under Section 8 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the Detaining Authority is mandated to communicate the grounds of detention or booklet within a period of five (5) days. The computation of the period of five days was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vasanthi vs. The Secretary to Government and others, passed in H.C.P.Nos.1407 and 1410 of 2023, dated 29.08.2023, wherein reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Enforcement Directorate, Government of India vs. Kapil Wadhawan and another', reported in '2023 SCC OnLine SC 972', and held as follows: “9.3 ............................ ...............It was a reference before the Hon'ble Larger Bench, however, as that is also a matter of curtailment of liberty (as in the case on hand), we draw inspiration from Kapil Wadhawan principle and hold that while computing five days within the meaning of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982, the date on which the preventive detention order is served on the detenu i.e., formal arrest pursuant to the preventive detention order should also be included.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 300 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 5. Thus, when the order of detention is taken into consideration for the purpose of computing five days period, the Detaining Authority has served it on the eighth day, which is opposite to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as followed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vasanthi's case. The reasons for the said delay has not been properly explained by the Detaining Authority. 6. In view of the violation of the mandatory provision under Section 8 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the order of detention cannot be legally sustained. 7. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 09.12.2025 in C.O.C.No.47/2025 is hereby set aside. The detenue viz., Alex @ Alexpandiyan, male, aged 29 years, S/o.Kesavan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 13-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gpa https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 300 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore. 4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Cuddalore 5. The Inspector of Police Nagapattinam Town Police Station Nagapattinam District 6. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9 7. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP No. 300 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. gpa HCP No. 300 of 2026 13-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis