Padmanathan @ Padhu v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.09.2021 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA H.C.P.No.915 of 2021 Padmanathan @ Padhu S/o.Paulraj (late) .. Petitioner / Detenue Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District, Erode.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Erode District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Erode North Police Station, Erode District.
5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
.. 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 second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.13/Goonda/2021/C1 dated 16.03.2021 against the petitioner Padmanathan alias Padhu
s/o.Paulraj, aged 36 years, who is now confined at Central Prison, Salem and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.Philip Ravindran Jesudoss For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by R.N.MANJULA, J] The petitioner/detenu viz., Padmanathan alias Padhu s/o.Paulraj, aged 36 years, has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.13/Goonda/2021/C1 dated 16.03.2021, 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 learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the arrest intimation pertaining to the ground case has not been properly translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on these grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially, Page Nos.123 and 124 of the booklet, it is clear that the arrest intimation pertaining to the ground case has not been properly translated in vernacular language. Thus, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.13/Goonda/2021/C1 dated 16.03.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Padmanathan alias Padhu s/o.Paulraj, aged 36 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 gm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District, Erode.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Erode District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Erode North Police Station, Erode District.
5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
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 M/s.Philip Ravindran Jesudoss, Advocate, S.R.No.49650 H.C.P.No.915 of 2021 VSN-II(CO) SB(29/09/2021)