M.Parvathi v. The State Rep By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 01.04.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM HCP.No.3118/2015 M.Parvathi ..Petitioner/Wife of the detenue Vs 1.The State rep by its Secretary to Government [Home] Prohibition and Excise Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Namakkal District Namakkal.

3.The Union of India Rep by its Additional Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Consumer Affairs Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan New Delhi.

..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention dated 08.10.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent in C.M.P.No.04/PBMMSEC Act/2015/ (F3), quash the same and produce the detenu, Manivel aged about 45 years, S/o Kuppusamy, before this Court and set him at liberty and the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Salem.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Manoharan For Respondents :

Mr.A.N.Thambi Durai Addl.Public Prosecutor for RR1 and 2 Mr.S.Arockiam CGSC for R3

ORDER

[Order of the court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, viz., Manivel, S/o Kuppusamy, aged 45 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 08.10.2015 against her husband branding him as a "Black Marketer" 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. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he focused his argument on the ground that the representation submitted by the petitioner has not at all been considered by the Government.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that it is true that such representation submitted by the petitioner was received by the Government on 07.01.2016. But, so far, no remarks have been received from the detaining authority and as a result, the representation could not be disposed of by the Government.

4. The said statement made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is recorded. Since the representation made by the petitioner has not been considered by the Government, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 08.10.2015, 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.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

To 1.The State rep by its Secretary to Government [Home] Prohibition and Excise Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal. 3.The Additional Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Consumer Affairs The Union of India Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan New Delhi.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

5.The Joint Secretary to Government Public Law and order fort St.George Chennai-9 6.The Superintendent Central prison, Salem HCP.No.3118/2015 aa2/05/2016