N.Mangai v. The State Represented By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.11.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN H.C.P.No.876 of 2022 N.Mangai .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The State Rep.
By its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Salem Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Inspector of Police, Jamunamarathur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.
(Crime No.38 of 2022) ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records leading to the detention of the petitiners husband namely P.Nadarajan, son of Palani, aged about 51 years under Act 14/1982 vide detention order dated 22.4.2022 on the file of the second respondent made in proceedings in D.O.No.36/2022 C-2 quash the same, consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of P.Nadarajan, son of Palani, aged about 51 years, who is lodged at Central Prison Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.C.D.Sugumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.] The petitioner is the wife of P.Nadarajan, male, aged about 51 years, son of Palani, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.36/2022 C-2 dated 22.04.2022, holding him 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 and we have also perused the records carefully. 3.
Though the 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 has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this ground, 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 No.11 of the booklet, it is clear that the arrest intimation has not been translated in vernacular language. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.
5.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.36/2022 C-2 dated 22.04.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., P.Nadarajan, male, aged about 51 years, son of Palani, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. (P.N.P.,J.) (TKRJ) 15.11.2022 Index: Yes/No ars/nsd
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Salem Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Inspector of Police, Jamunamarathur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
P.N.PRAKASH,J.
and RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.
ars H.C.P.No.876 of 2022 15.11.2022