Yuvarani v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.06.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM H.C.P.No.327/2015 Yuvarani

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

...Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records from the second respondent in connection with order Memo BDFGISSV/2016/2014 dated 30.11.2014 and to quash the same and to produce the petitioner's son Sam Sundar @ Vellai Sundar, S/o.Srinivasan, aged about 24 years, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 before this Court and to set him at liberty and to quash the detention order.

For petitioner :

Mr.P.K.Ilavarasan For respondents :

Mr.M.Maharaja Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Memo BDFGISSV/2016/2014 dated 30.11.2014, whereby the son of the petitioner, by name, Sam Sundar @

Vellai Sundar, S/o.Srinivasan, aged about 24 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of 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.P.K.Ilavarasan, 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 the detenu has been formally arrested and remanded to judicial custody in the 4th adverse case in Cr.No.2303/2014 registered by M-1 Madhavaram Police Station, but the said factum of the remand of the detenu in the 4th adverse case in Cr.No.2303/2014 has not been reflected in the grounds of detention, more particularly in paragraph 4 of the Detention order and only a reference has been made in respect of the ground case and 3rd adverse case. This is indicative of the nonapplication of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and hence, submitted that the detention order is vitiated 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 and citation.

6.As could be evidenced from the Booklet furnished before us, the detenu was formally arrested in the 4th adverse case in Cr.No.2303/2014 registered by M-1 Madhavaram Police Station. But the factum of remand of the detenu in the 4th adverse case viz., in Cr.No.2303/2014 has not been reflected in paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention and only a reference has been made in respect of the ground case and 3rd adverse case. When nothing has been stated about the remand of the detenu in the said 4th adverse case, it is not known whether the detenu has filed any bail application in the said adverse case or not. If that be so, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said adverse case. Hence, the

Detaining Authority has passed the Detention order in total nonapplication of mind which would vitiate the detention order. 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 grounds. 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-IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vga To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4.The Superintendent of Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.

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

H.C.P.No.327/2015 PUR (CO) PSI (07.07.2015)