Manjula v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.07.2021 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN H.C.P.No.212 of 2021 Manjula

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

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

4.The Superintendent of Police, 5.The Inspector of Police, PEW, Villupuram,

...Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records from the 2nd respondent in connection with the detention order in Rc.No.C2/573/2021 dated 21.01.2021 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's husband Ramesh, aged about 37 years, son of Kannayiram, now confined in the Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mageshkumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Ramesh, aged about 37 years, son of Kannayiram. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Rc.No.C2/573/2021 dated 21.01.2021, holding him to be a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3.

Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, 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. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the sponsoring authority has stated in the Arrest Memo at page No.22 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the wife of the detenu. However, there is no material to substantiate the service of arrest intimation stated to have been made to the wife of the detenu. Therefore, it is stated that the detenu was deprived of making an effective representation in the absence of furnishing of full particulars by the detaining authority. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind. 4.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the wife of the detenu through SMS. He strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. 5.

However we find that there are no material particulars to substantiate the same. This Court has also taken the similar view in such cases that the detention order cannot be sustained. 6.

As evidenced from the document in page No.22 of the Booklet furnished to us, a mere endorsement is made by the authorities to the effect that the arrest intimation has been informed to the wife of the detenu through SMS, but, no materials have been furnished to substantiate that the said intimation was sent through Thapal or Registered post or as per the procedure laid down. Therefore, non-furnishing of details given to the relatives of the detenu would amount to deprivation

of the right of the detenu to make an effective representation and the same would vitiate the order of detention and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

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. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed.

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Rc.No.C2/573/2021 dated 21.01.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ramesh, aged about 37 years, son of Kannayiram, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nsd To 1.The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

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

4.The Superintendent of Police,

5.The Inspector of Police, PEW, Villupuram, 6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.G.Magesh Kumar, Advocate,Sr.36075 H.C.P.No.212 of 2021 AK-II NSK 02/08/2021