P.Kalaiselvi v. The Principal Secretary To

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.01.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH H.C.P.No.1815/2015 P.Kalaiselvi .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2.The District Collector & District Magistrate Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the order of detention passed in SC.No.73/2015 dated 09.07.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the corpus of the detenu Seenivasan, son of Nagaraj, now lodged at central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Doraisamy For Respondents :

Mr.M.Maharaja, APP

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in SC.No.73/2015 dated 09.07.2015 whereby the detenu/the son of the petitioner, by name, Seenivasan, aged 25 years, was branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982].

2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.S.Doraisamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that page Nos.77, 108, 109, 111, 119, 133, 137, 140 to 145 and certain other pages in the booklet furnished to the detenue are 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 the copies of documents referred and relied upon and referred to by the Detaining Authority, in particular, page Nos.77, 108, 109, 111, 119, 133, 137, 140 to 145 etc., 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 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 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(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2.The District Collector & District Magistrate Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.

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

+1cc to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate sr.2852 H.C.P.No.1815/2015 skv[co] srg 02/02/2016