Pappathi, v. The Secretary To Government,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 13.07.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM H.C.P.No.384/2015 Pappathi .. Petitioner Vs

1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department State of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector O/o.The District Magistrate & District Collector Namakkal District.

3. The Superintendent of Prison Salem Central Prison, Salem District.

.. Respondents Prayer:- This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2, in CMP No.37/Goonda/2014/M1 dated 20.12.2014, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Selvam @ Muthuselvam, son of Thiyagarajan, aged about 35 years, now detained in Salem Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents :

Mr.M.Maharaja,APP

ORDER

[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 CMP No.37/Goonda/2014/M1 dated 20.12.2014, whereby the detenu/the son of the petitioner herein, viz., Selvam @ Muthuselvam, son of Thiyagarajan, aged about 35 years, 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.R.Alagumani, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail application in the similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.

3.Per contra, Mr.M.Maharaja, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. However, he submitted that the copy of the bail application in the similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu.

4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.

5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar case, the accused was released on bail by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in Crl.MP.No.777/2014 for the offence u/s.392 IPC in Cr.No.16/2014 on the file of Vazhavandhinadu Police Station. On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the document, viz., the bail application, in respect of the similar case ; but the bail order of the said similar case [in English version] has been furnished in page Nos.62 and 63 of the Booklet. The said bail application filed in similar case was the document relied upon by the Detaining Authority to come to a subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. Admittedly, such document has not been supplied to the detenu, as it did not form part of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution. Therefore, non supply of the copy of the bail order and other documents in similar case to the detenu would vitiate the impugned detention order.

6.The Honourable Supreme Court in M.Ahamed Kutty Vs. Union of India and another (1990-2-SCC-1) has observed thus:- "7. Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for consideration. If those were not considered the

satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that it amounted to denial of the detenu's right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case." (Emphasis added)."

7.This Court in Jarinabegam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu by Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Exercise Department, Chennai and another (2007-1-MLJ-Crl-18) relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court cited supra has held that non supply of the copy of the bail application/bail order copy in similar case to the detenu has the effect of vitiating the order or detention.

8. As already analysed by us, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, non-supply of the document, viz., bail order etc., in similar case, to the detenu has the effect of vitiating the impugned detention order. Further, due to non-supply of such a vital document, the detenu has lost valuable right to make an effective representation to the authorities concerned.

9. In the light of the above said principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and for the reasons stated above, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.

10. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS II ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar AP

To

1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department State of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector O/o.The District Magistrate & District Collector Namakkal District.

3. The Superintendent of Prison Salem Central Prison, Salem District.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order), Fort st. George, Chennai-600 009.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

HCP.No.384/2015 bvr[co] srg 05.08.2015