P.Ramasamy v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM H.C.P.No.1388/2015 P.Ramasamy .. Petitioner/Father of the detenu Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.
.. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records relating to the detenu's detention order passed by the second respondent vide C.M.P.No.41/Video Priate/Salem City/2015 dated 08.05.2015 and to set aside the same and to produce the detenu Kannan, Son of Ramasamy, now confined in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and to set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.A.G.Rajan 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 C.M.P.No.41/Video Pirate/Salem City/2015, dated 08.05.2015, whereby the petitioner/father of the detenu herein, by name Kannan, S/o.Ramasamy, aged about 33 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, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "VIDEO PIRATE".
2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.A.G.Rajan, 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 the detaining authority has stated that the bail application filed in the ground case in Crime No.360/2015 registered by Sooramangalam Police Station on behalf of the detenu, was pending as on the date of the passing of the detention order and also further stated that the relative of the detenue is taking efforts to move bail application in Crl.No.148/2015 registered by Azhagapuram Polie Station.
But he has not furnished the relevant Miscellaneous Petition Number of the court concerned and the date on which the bail petition was pending. This is indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and hence, submitted that the detention order is vitiated 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 and citation.
6.A perusal of the grounds of detention in particular para No.5 would show that the detaining authority has stated as follows: "I am aware that the bail petition filed on behalf of him for the Sooramangalam PS Cr.No.360/2015 is pending for hearing in the Court. Further, it is learnt tht the relative of Thiru.Kannan is taking efforts to move bail application for Azhagapuram PS Cr.No.148/2015 to take him out on bail.." From the above, it is crystal clear that the detaining authority has not mentioned the M.P. Number and the court concerned in respect of the bail petition filed in the ground case in Crime No.360/2015. Hence, the Detaining Authority has passed the Detention order in total non-application of mind which would vitiate the detention order. 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 quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned grounds. 9.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order 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 kal To 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison Salem.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & order), Fort St. George, Chennai. 600 009. + 1 cc to Mr.A.G. Rajan, Advocate SR.40595 H.C.P.No.1388/2015 CTK(CO) EU 27.08.15