Smt.Pounammal v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.06.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM H.C.P.No.3274 of 2014 Smt Pounammal ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2. The Commissioner of Police Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 09.09.2014 in BDFGISSV No.1184/2014 against the petitioner's son V.Siva, son of Venugopal, male, aged 25 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce petitioner's son before this Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Thanjan For Respondents :

Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor

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 BDFGISSV No.1184/2014 dated 09.09.2014, whereby the detenu/the son of the petitioner, by name,

Siva, son of Venugopal, aged 25 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.Thanjan, 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 Nos.269 and 271 and certain other pages in the booklet furnished to the detenue 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 Nos.269 and 271 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(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar AP To

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

2. The Commissioner of Police Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

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.

+1cc to Mr.R.Thanjan, Advocate, S.R.No.26285 H.C.P.No.3274/2014 SVI(CO) CA(11/06/2015)