Amala v. State Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.06.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P. No. 100 of 2019 Amala ... Petitioner -vs1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.By,The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007 ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for records relating to the detention order in Memo No.1003/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 30.10.2018 on the file of the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's husband MADHAN KUMAR @ MADHAN , S/o LAKSHMANAN, aged about 39 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

For petitioner :

Mr.D. Gopi Krishnan For Respondents:

Mr.C. Iyyappa Raj Addl.Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu MADHAN KUMAR @ MADHAN, aged about 39 years has come up with this habeas corpus petition, challenging the detention order passed against her husband Madhan Kumar @ Madhan by the second respondent, vide Memo No.1003/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 30.10.2018, branding him as a "Goonda" 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 appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.

3. Though, several grounds were raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus on the ground 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 Page No.55 of the booklet, furnished to the detenu, is illegible and could not be read at all. This illegible copy would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention. Thus, the detention order is vitiated on this ground and the same is liable to be quashed.

5.

We have gone through the same. A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu would show that Page No.55 of the booklet furnished to the detenu is illegible and could not be read at all. 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.

6. In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned ground. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order in Memo No.1003/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 30.10.2018 passed by the 2nd 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(insp cell) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rst To:

1.The Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and order) Fort.St.George, Chennai 9. 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P. No. 100 of 2019 A.SK(16/07/2019)