← Library
Madras High CourtHCP/636/2021allowed

Punitha v. The District Collector And District Magistrate

2021-09-21Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash,Honourable Ms Justice R.N.Manjula4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.09.2021 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA H.C.P.No.636 of 2021 Punitha W/o.Saravanan .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, 2.Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

4.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai East Police Station, 5.The Superintendent, .. Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the first respondent dated 27.01.2021 in D.O.No.07/2021-C2 against the detenu Pradeepkumar @ Vengatta s/o.Saravanan, aged about 19 years, who is confined at Central

Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Padmanabhan For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Pradeepkumar @ Vengatta s/o.Saravanan, aged about 19 years. The detenu has been detained by the first respondent by his order in D.O.No.07/2021-C2 dated 27.01.2021, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the 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 Additional Public Prosecutor 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 page No.270 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the mother of the detenu through SMS. However, there is no material to substantiate the service of arrest intimation stated to have been made to the mother 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 Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the mother of the detenu through SMS.

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.270 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 mother 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 D.O.No.07/2021-C2 dated 27.01.2021 passed by the first respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Pradeepkumar @ Vengatta s/o.Saravanan, aged about 19 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar gm To 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate,

2.The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

4.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai East Police Station, 5.The Superintendent, 6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.636 of 2021 KSM(CO) B.VC (27/09/2021)