N.Sasikumar v. The Secretary To The Govt.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.09.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM H.C.P.No.1396/2014 N.Sasikumar .. Petitioner Vs.

1.State rep. by Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepura District, Kancheepuram.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records maintained in Memo BDFGISSSV No.41/2015 dated 05.05.2015 on the file of the second respondent and to set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Amulraj Alias Amul, son of Vallikannan, aged 26 years, who is now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66 before this Court and set him at liberty. For petitioner :

Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran For respondents :

Mr.M.Maharaja Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[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 BDFGISSSV No.41/2015 dated 05.05.2015, whereby the petitioner is the uncle of the detenu, by name, Amulraj @ Amul, son of Vallikannan, aged 26 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of 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 "GOONDA".

2.As per the grounds of detention dated 05.05.2015, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

i)Adverse Cases:

Sl Nos.

Name of the Police station and Crime No.

Section of law Selaiyur PS Cr.No.1484/2011 147,148,341,302,IPC 149 IPC r/w.3(i) of TNPPPDL Act 1992 Chengalpattu Taluk PS Cr.No.665/2013 392, 307 IPC Chengalpattu Taluk PS Cr.No.547/2014 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC (ii) Ground Case:

Sl No.

Name of the Police station and Crime No.

Section of law Chengalpattu Taluk PS Cr.No.268/2015 294(b), 506(ii), 307, 392 r/w.397 IPC

3. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran, 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.

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has been formally arrested and remanded to judicial custody in the third adverse case in Cr.No 547/2014 registered by the Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station respectively, but the said factum of the remand of the detenu in the third adverse case in Cr.No.547/2014 has not been reflected in the grounds of detention, more particularly in paragraph 5 of the Detention order. 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. 5.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.

6.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts and citation.

7.As could be evidenced from the Booklet furnished before us, the detenu was arrested in the third adverse case in Cr.No.547/2014 registered by the Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station. But the factum of remand of the detenu in the third adverse case in Crime

No.547/2014 has not been reflected in paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention and only a reference has been made in respect of the ground case. When nothing has been stated about the remand of the detenu in the said third adverse case, it is not known whether the detenu has filed any bail application in the said adverse case or not. If that be so, there is no imminent possibility of the detenue coming out on bail in the said third adverse case. Hence, the Detaining Authority has passed the Detention order in total non-application of mind which would vitiate the detention order.

8.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. 9.In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned grounds. 10.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(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kal To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4.The Superintendent of Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai-66.

5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & order), Fort St. George, Chennai. 600 009. H.C.P.No.1396/2015 CTK(CO) EU 23.09.15