K.Fathima Beevi v. The Commissioner Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.07.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN H.C.P.No.3763/2014 K.Fathima Beevi ..

Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police, Chennai 600 008.

2.The Secretary Prohibition & Excise Department [Home] Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St George, Chennai-9.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in No.2080/2014 dated 05.12.2014, set aside the same, direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu A.Syed, son of Abubackkar, aged about 33 years now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66 before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Subburam For RR 1 & 2 :

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 first respondent vide Proceedings in No.2080/2014 dated 05.12.2014, whereby the detenu/the son of the petitioner, by name, A.Syed, son of Abubackkar, aged about 33 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.K.Subburam, 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.47, 50, 51, 77, 103, 104, 136 and 137 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 Advocate General 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..47, 50, 51, 77, 103, 104, 136, 137 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 first respondent 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 III ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar AP To 1.The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police, Chennai 600 008.

2.The Secretary Prohibition & Excise Department [Home] Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St George, Chennai-9.

3.The Superintendent of Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (law and order) Fort Saint George, Chennai-9 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.3763/2014 KM (CO) kk 13/7