Judgment :- (Habeas Corpus Petition and Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body of the detenu N. Tamilaravan, son of Natesan under the illegal custody of the 6th respondent before this court, set him at liberty forthwith; and to issue a Writ of Certiorari and call for the records from the second respondent pertaining to the impugned order, C.O.C.No. 2/2003 dated 24-02-2003 and quash the same.) COMMON ORDER P. Sathasivam, J. One T. Palaniammal, wife of Tamilarvan, has filed the above Habeas Corpus Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the Government of Tamil Nadu and police officers to produce the body of the detenu-N. Tamilarvan, son of Natesan under the illegal custody of the Superintendent of Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. 2. In Writ Petition No. 4663/2004, the said N. Tamilarvan challenges the order of the District Collector in C.O.C.No. 2/2003 dated 24-02-2003 detaining him as Goonda under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, (Act 14 of 1982) [in short Act 14 of 1982”]. 3. Since the contentions raised and the relief prayed for in both the matters, they are being disposed of by the following common order. 4. Heard Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Subramanian, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for respondents. 5. According to learned counsel for petitioner, inasmuch as the detention order under Act 14/1982 was passed on 24-2-2003 for a period of one year, the said period having been expired, the detenu, who is still in prison, cannot be detained in prison beyond the period of one year from the date of detention order, that the continuous detention as on date is liable to be quashed. However, learned Government Advocate, after taking us through the factual details, the date of detention order under Act 14/1982, escape of the detenu from the custody and re-arrest etc., would submit that since the maximum period of one year provided under the Act still subsists, both the Habeas Corpus Petition and the Writ Petition are liable to be dismissed. 6. However, learned Government Advocate, after taking us through the factual details, the date of detention order under Act 14/1982, escape of the detenu from the custody and re-arrest etc., would submit that since the maximum period of one year provided under the Act still subsists, both the Habeas Corpus Petition and the Writ Petition are liable to be dismissed. 6. It is seen that the writ petitioner namely N. Tamilarvan is branded as “Goonda” under Act 14/1982 and an order has been passed by the District Collector, Tiruvarur by proceedings in C.O.C.No. 2/2003 dated 24-02-2003 and in order to serve the order of detention, the detaining authority issued a non-bailable warrant and the detention order was served on 26-2-2003 in the presence of 2 independent witnesses. It is the case of the respondents that after service of the detention order, the detenu was taken to the Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli and during that period, the petitioner escaped from the custody of the police, for which a case was registered in Crime No. 37/2003. 7. It is not in dispute that the brother of the writ petitioner has moved a Habeas Corpus Petition No.656/2003 and the same was dismissed on merits. Though the writ petitioner surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate-No.I, Mannargudi in connection with Cr.No. 37/2003 on 23-4-2004 and later he was released on bail. 8. With regard to the contention raised by Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, it is to be noted that as per Section 13 of Act 14/1982, the maximum period for which any person can be detained in pursuance of any detention order made under the said Act which has been confirmed under Section 12 shall be 12 months from the date of detention. It is brought to our notice that the detenu, namely, writ petitioner has been detained only on 17-2-2005, as such, the period of detention is one year from the date of detention only and not from the detention order. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government that the grounds on which the order has been made and the other records were placed before the Advisory Board on 22-02-2005 within three weeks from the date of detention (i.e., before 09-03-2005) and the Advisory Board has conducted the hearing on 30-03-2005 within the statutory limit and opined that there is sufficient cause for the detention of Natesa Tamilarvan @ Tamilarvan. Based on the opinion of the Advisory Board, the order of detention was confirmed in G.O. (Rt) No. 1073, P and E dated 13-05-2005. The further information is that the detention order was passed on 24-02-2003, the detenu escaped from the police custody on 26-02-2003 and absconded himself till 16-02-2005. On 17-02-2005, the detenu was confined in the Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli. Now the point is whether the one year period as provided under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 is from the date of detention or from the date of detention order. In STATE OF GUJARAT v. ADAM KASAM BHAYA, reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 2005 , it was held that “…The period of one or two years, as the case may be, as mentioned in Section 10 will run from the date of his actual detention, and not from the date of the order of detention. If he has served a part of the period of detention, he will have to serve out the balance. The preliminary objection is overruled.” The said order was passed by the Supreme Court with reference to Section 10 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (Act 52 of 1974). Similar view has been expressed in ADDL. SECRETARY, GOVEMRNMENT OF INDIA v. ALKA SUBHASH GADIA, reported in 1992 SCC (Crl.) 301. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in SUNIL FULCHAND SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA (2999 Crl.L.J. 1444), while considering Section 10 of the COFEPOSA Act, has held that the period of detention is to be computed from the date of actual detention and not from the date of order of detention. 9. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred decisions and in view of Section 13 of Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, inasmuch as the maximum period for which any person can be detained in pursuance of the detention order made under the said Act shall be 12 months from the date of detention i.e., one year only from the date of detention and not from the date of detention order. In other words, the period of detention is to be computed from the date of actual detention and not from the date of order of detention. Similar plea as claimed by Mr. In other words, the period of detention is to be computed from the date of actual detention and not from the date of order of detention. Similar plea as claimed by Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner, has been negatived by the Supreme Court in all the above referred cases. The writ petitioner cannot be allowed to have an unfair advantage and double benefit of his own action which delayed the execution of the detention order (since he escaped while he was taken to prison). 10. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any merit in these petitions; accordingly both the Habeas Corpus Petition and the Writ Petition are dismissed. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.5479/2004 is closed.