Pandian v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.11.2020 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR H.C.P. No. 820 of 2020 Pandian .. Petitioner Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore - 1.
4. The Inspector of Police, Neyveli Themral Police Station, Neyveli.
5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore-4.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 04.02.2020 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings in C3/D.O./07/2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner's son namely Neelakandan, son of Pandian, aged 22 years, before this Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now petitioner's son detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla for Mr.C.C.Chellappan For Respondents :
Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the father of the detenu, Neelakandan, son of Pandian, aged 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C3/D.O./07/2020, dated 04.02.2020, holding to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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 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 the Arrest Memo at page No. 192 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the family member of the detenu. However, there is no material to substantiate the service of arrest intimation stated to have been made to the family member 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 family member of the detenu through SMS. 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.
5.As evidenced from the document in page No.192 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 family member 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.
6.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.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C3/D.O./07/2020, dated 04.02.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Neelakandan, son of Pandian, aged 22 years, 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 mmi/ssm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore - 1.
4.The Inspector of Police, Neyveli Themral Police Station, Neyveli.
5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore-4.
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No.820 of 2020 RR(CO) RMP(09/12/2020)