Mrs. Elavarasi v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.05.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR H.C.P.No.2119 of 2015 Elavarasi ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
... 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 made in BCDFGISSSV NO. 636/2015 dated 29/07/2015 passed by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and also to direct the detenu THIRU.SARAVANAN @ SAMINATHAN S/O. RAJAGOPAL ACHARI, aged about 26 YEARS, who is presently confined at CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI, to be produced before this Hon'ble court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.T.Arul For Respondents :
Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in BCDFGISSSV NO. 636/2015 dated 29/07/2015, whereby the detenu/the husband of the petitioner, by name, SARAVANAN @ SAMINATHAN S/O. RAJAGOPAL ACHARI, aged about 26 years, was branded as a "Bootlegger" 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, 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 page No.355 and certain other pages in the booklet furnished to the detenu 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 No.355 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 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 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 VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mra To
1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2119 of 2015 KJI(CO) CA(06/06/2016)