Jeeva v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.07.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN H.C.P. No.12 of 2015 Jeeva .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai-8.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records and to quash the same relating to the detention of the petitioner's son namely Stephen, son of Easupatham, aged about 24 years, detained under Act 14/1982 vide detention order dated 10.12.2014 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in Memo No.2127/BDFGISSV/2014 and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenu before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Baskar For Respondents :

Mr.M.Maharaja, APP

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Memo No.2127/BDFGISSV/ 2014, dated 10.12.2014 whereby the detenu/son of the petitioner, by name, Stephen, son of Easupatham, aged about 24 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slumgrabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "Goonda".

2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.M.Baskar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the booklet, furnished to the detenu, several pages were found to be illegible and could not be read at all. This illegible copies would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention. Thus, the detention order is vitiated on these grounds and the same is liable to be quashed. 4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit 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. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts.

6.A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu would show that several copies of documents viz. page Nos.98, 116, 118, 121 and 122 referred and relied upon are illegible and are totally unreadable. This has resulted in the detenu being deprived of making an effective representation. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated and liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

7.It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. 8.In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned ground.

9.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order in Memo No.2127/BDFGISSV/2014, dated 10.12.2014 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai-8.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.

4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (L&O) Fort st.George, Chennai.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Sv(co) krd 16/7 H.C.P. No.12 of 2015