Madras High Court
HCP/1253/2026 of Chinnathambi Vs The secretary to the Government on 28 September 2026
HCP No. 1253 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
HCP No. 1253 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011533502026}
Chinnathambi
S/o. Suburayan,
No.317, Old Colony Street,
Kandiyangkuppam Village,
Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The secretary to the Government
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Superintendent of Police
Tiruvannamalai Distrtict, Tiruvannamalai.
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore.
5. The Inspector Of Police
Thatchampet Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the
HCP No. 1253 of 2026
records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent 14-6-2026 in D.O.No.24/2026-C2 against the Petitioner’s Son Suresh, Male aged 40 years S/o. Chinnathambi who is confined at Central Prison Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before the Honorable Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.D.Balaji
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu Suresh, Son of Chinnathambi, Male, aged about 40 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 14.06.2026 vide proceedings in D.O.No.24/2026-C2 branding him as "Bootlegger" 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. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents. We have perused the records submitted by the detaining authority.
HCP No. 1253 of 2026
3. Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition assailing the detention order, in the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument only with regard to non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his argument on the ground that while the detention order incorrectly records that the arrest of the detenu was intimated to his brother Thirupathi, stated as the Son of Settu, through his mobile No.9150522937, on the same day, the said Tirupathi is actually the Son of one Chinnathambi. This clearly shows a non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention, thereby preventing the detenu from making an effective representation against the detention order. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit submits that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner.
6. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the materials available on record especially Page No.22 to 25 in
HCP No. 1253 of 2026
Volume-I of the booklet, it is evident that while the arrest of the detenu was purportedly intimated to his brother, Thirupathi, (wrongly described as the Son of Settu), the said Thirupathi is actually the Son of one Chinnathambi. Furthermore, the arrest intimation fails to bear the signatures of the arresting This clearly shows non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention. Thus, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.
7. In the result, the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 14.06.2026 vide proceedings in D.O.No.24/2026-C2 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Suresh, Son of Chinnathambi, Male, aged about 40 years, who is now detained at Central Prison, Vellore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSI Note to Office: Registry to communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Vellore, forthwith.
HCP No. 1253 of 2026
To:
1. The secretary to the Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Superintendent of Police Tiruvannamalai Distrtict, Tiruvannamalai.
4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Vellore.
5. The Inspector Of Police Thatchampet Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
HCP No. 1253 of 2026
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. SSI HCP No. 1253 of 2026 28-09-2026