P.Punitha v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.01.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH H.C.P.No.1991/2015 P.Punitha ..Petitioner Vs.

1.The State Repy by its Secretary to the Government [Home], Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of TamilNadu, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector & District Magistrate Coimbatore.

..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention dated 16.07.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent in CMP No.38/Goonda/2015/E1, quash the same and produce the detenu Suruttaiyan @ Prakash, Prabhakaran, aged about 30 years, S/o.Angamuthu, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Manoharan 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 CMP.No.38/Goonda/2015/E1, whereby the detenu/husband of the petitioner, by name, Suruttaiyan @ Prakash, Prabhakaran, aged about 30 years, S/o.Angamuthu, 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 "Goonda".

2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.S.Manoharan, 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 in paragraph 5 of the English version of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that the detenu has been remanded to judicial custody in the adverse cases and in the ground case. He also relied on the bail granted to the co-accused of the detenu in the ground case [Cr.No.68/2015], viz., Kumar @ Nandhakumar, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam in CMP No.3244/2015 on 06.06.2015. Whereas, in the Booklet furnished to the detenu, bail granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in Crl.MP.No.3749/2011 in respect of one Vetrivelan @ Sathya has been furnished. This is indicative of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and hence, prays for quashment of the detention order.

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.As evidenced from the Grounds of Detention [both in Vernacular and English Version], in particular, paragraph 5, the Detaining Authority has made a mention about the remand of the detenu in the adverse cases and in the ground case. It is also seen that reliance was placed on the bail being granted to the co-accused of the detenu [Kumar @ Nandhakumar] in the ground case [Cr.No.68/2015] by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam ; whereas a perusal of the Booklet furnished before us, in particular, page Nos.126 to 129, it is evident that bail order in Crl.MP.No.3749/2011 [both in English version and vernacular version] in respect of an accused Vetrivelan @ Sathya, connected with the case in Cr.No.1792/2011 registered by Salem Town Police Station has been furnished and it is an irrelevant document. This is indicative of total nonapplication of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated, warranting interference of this Court.

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-VII) /TRUE COPY/ Sub-Assistant Registrar AP To 1.The Secretary to the Government [Home], Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector & District Magistrate Coimbatore.

3.The Superintendent Central Prison, Coimbatore.

4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (law & order), Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.1991/2015 CO-BVR JD 01/02/2016